Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Homelessness

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the extra funds announced recently to tackled homelessness will be made available directly to housing associations.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): This programme will amount to £250 million over the next two years. Of this, £73 million will be made available to housing associations. Local authorities may choose to channel some of the remainder to housing associations.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister gives us good information, because homelessness concerns all hon. Members. Will he go further and say what initiatives the Government might take to assist the homeless in general, particularly bearing it in mind that one of the major causes of homelessness is the break-up of marriages and family life?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the break-up of family life is one of the most significant reasons for homelessness. Therefore, part of the answer to the homelessness problem is to ensure that as many young people as possible stay close to the family home until they are sure of adequate alternative accommodation and have the financial means to support it. With the help of Shelter, SHAC—the sheltered housing advice centre—and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, I am today launching a homeless advice service at a cost of about £1 million. It will give advice about the dangers of leaving home and about the help available to those who become homeless. As a matter of urgency, we are considering what further comprehensive action we need to take to relieve the problem, especially for those sleeping rough on the streets.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that more hostels are required and that if voluntary organisations were given more cash, the problem would be somewhat relieved? At present, giving cash to housing associations does not house the young homeless, with whom we are concerned. Obviously, the associations house people and are doing a good job, hut, certainly, they will not be housing the people in real need.

Mr. Spicer: Yes, one of the things that we are looking at is hostel accommodation. We shall make recommendations in the light of our considerations.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend's announcement is welcome. Does he agree that the problem would be much alleviated if five principal London Labour authorities were to collect the £58 million of outstanding rent owed and did not have 10,000 empty properties?

Mr. Spicer: Sadly, my hon. Friend is right. It is largely the way in which Labour councils manage those estates that has caused some properties to be vacant. That is a national scandal.

Mr. Soley: I am sure that the teenage children in their cardboard boxes will be fascinated by the Government's latest gimmick. Does not the Minister understand that £125 million over one year, followed by £125 million the next year, will not even cover the cost of the homelessness that has been brought about by the latest hike in mortgage interest rates? In addition, it will not cover the cost of giving homes to people who are evicted because they cannot pay the £15 a week rent rises in Conservative Redbridge or Tory Bournemouth. Those are the sort of problems that the Minister should address. One thing that he could do today that would have some weight—perhaps he will tell the House that he will do it—is to allow local authorities to start spending their capital receipts on housing the homeless.

Mr. Spicer: One of the things that Labour spokesmen do not do when they shout their mouths off about this subject is actually to look at the causes. The Government are looking at one of the causes. This is an international problem. I have seen how serious it is in Copenhagen. One of the causes is the break-up of family life, so one of the good steps that we can take is to warn children against leaving their families prematurely. Of course, it then becomes a matter of responsibility for the Government to ensure that there is adequate accommodation for those who become homeless.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of jobs are available in London and that employers find great difficulty filling those jobs, even when accommodation is offered? Does not that suggest that a number of the so-called homeless are, in fact, malingerers?

Mr. Spicer: Not only is my hon. Friend right that there is high employment throughout the country, but it is often ignored by the Opposition that we have the most generous housing benefits for people who cannot afford accommodation of any country in the western world. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out some of the absurdities of some of the Labour party's propaganda on this matter.

Nature Conservancy Council

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the proposed break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): My Department has received a number of representations recently about the proposals to strengthen the conservation and countryside agencies.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State agree that, following reorganisation, certain aspects of the NCC's work will need to be determined and handled on a United Kingdom basis—for example, the criteria for designating sites of special scientific interest? Will he tell us, first, what aspects will need to be handled in future on a United Kingdom basis; and secondly, which will be the body responsible for determining those aspects? Will it be the new bodies, or the joint co-ordinating committee, or will it be the responsibility of the Secretary of State himself?

Mr. Patten: It will be primarily the responsibility of the joint statutory committee. I know that Professor Holliday, who will chair the committee, is considering these matters, and he will want to discuss the issue with the territorial organisations. I am sure that he will be able to produce a formula that will satisfy them and all concerned in nature conservancy. I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about, interest in and knowledge of the subject.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sites of special scientific interest in the Western Isles and the rest of Scotland will be much better served by a strong science-based establishment in Scotland looking after Scottish interests? Does he further agree with the strong opinion in the NCC that England, Scotland and Wales would be much better served by independent councils?

Mr. Patten: I wholly accept what my hon. Friend says. As he will know, we have had letters of support from the territorial committees of the NCC. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point about the SSSIs is one that Magnus Magnusson and other members of the Scottish committee will want to take into full account in due course.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that tinkering with the structure may not, in itself, be enought to ensure real environmental protection? Will he therefore match the changes with ensuring that adequate funding and adequate powers are given to the appointed personnel? I welcome the appointment of Sir Magnus Magnusson to what the right hon. Gentleman calls the local territorial organisation in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Sir Magnus and his colleagues have a statutory right to be involved in planning issues, which are especially important in this matter?

Mr. Patten: I should not want to cut across the responsibilities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. But the hon. Lady is perfectly correct to say that we must ensure that all aspects of nature conservancy in Scotland, Wales and England have adequate resources. Unlike our predecessors, we shall increase those resources, not cut them.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received opposing the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We continue to receive a good many representations on the community charge, covering a wide range of views.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that the difference between the rates on our house in Coventry, at £619, and the poll tax for two people in Coventry, is £189, and that that is my family's fortnight's summer holiday? If the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister think that they are taking my bairns' two weeks' holiday off them to pay for his bloody poll tax, he does not understand the determination of 1 million people in Scotland who have not paid and of 10 million in England and Wales who will be joining them in five weeks' time.

Mr. Chope: Despite the hon. Gentleman's customary rant on the issue of the community charge, the House should congratulate him because his second home is in the London borough of Wandsworth. Contrary to his earlier protestations, he has registered there for the standard community charge thereby ensuring that his community charge will be about the lowest in the country.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to hear the rest of the Minister's answer, but, on a point of order, you should reflect on how the Minister knows where I live and where I have registered.

Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so coy about his second home and where it is located. It would be particularly mean-minded of him to withhold payment of the community charge and encourage others to do so. Coventry has the third highest revenue support grant per adult in the west midlands, which is considerably above the national average.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order,Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gould: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's reply calls for an immediate explanation, because the House needs to know how the Minister knows who has registered on the poll tax register when that information is required to be kept confidential by the registrar.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. It is a matter about the contents of an answer.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chope: Treating that as a question, it was open to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to apply to have his name withheld. He did not do so and I can confirm that his name appears on the public extract of the register.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that hon. Members are taking up a great deal of time. What is the point of order?

Mr. Madden: You, Mr. Speaker, are in the Chair to protect the interests of all hon. Members and, with due respect, the Minister has revealed that he is aware of the home address of a Member of the House. That seems to be a clear breach of assurances given by Ministers that such information would not be revealed to third parties. Therefore——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could make his point much more briefly than that. Whether a Minister knows where an hon. Member lives is not a material matter for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is secret".] Order. It may not be a secret matter. It is a matter for the contents of the answer and not a matter for order in the Chamber. There are many more questions on the community charge.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that in his supplementary question the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) used unparliamentary language. I should be grateful if you would require him to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member used a word which is in current use today, but which I prefer not to hear in the Chamber.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many more questions to come on the community charge.

Mr. Howarth: rose——

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Air Pollution

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to control air pollution.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Current systems of air pollution control are being strengthened and extended by the Environmental Protection Bill. Additional processes will come under a robust new prior authorisation regime. The Bill enables the Clean Air Acts to be extended to control gaseous emissions from boilers or furnaces. It also streamlines the procedures for controlling air pollution that is a statutory nuisance.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I regret that at the moment the internal combustion engine is excluded from the Environmental Protection Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was never the Government's intention that steam locomotives should be included within the confines of the Bill? Will he confirm that amendment No. 608 to the Bill, tabled in his name and mine, will lift that dire threat from the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend's interest in and support for steam locomotives is extremely well known and there are thousands upon thousands of people like him in the country, who share that interest. There is no question of preventing or curtailing the use of steam locomotives, and we have no intention of changing the law relating to them. We hope to carry forward in part III of the Environmental Protection Bill, the exemption contained in section 72 of the Public Health Act 1961, which excludes steam ejected by railway locomotives from the definition of statutory nuisance.

Mr. John Garrett: What does the Minister think of the Department of Energy's decision to cut flue gas desulphurisation from power stations? Can he comment on reports of a disagreement between his Department and the Department of Energy? Unless that process goes ahead, we shall be unable to meet the European Community directive on clear air.

Mr. Trippier: To talk about disagreements between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy is stretching credulity to breaking point. It is clear to me that the hon. Gentleman has not read the debate that took place in the House yesterday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made it perfectly clear that the United Kingdom is fully committed to implementing the large combustion plants directive. We signed it in 1988, and it commits us to a 60 per cent. cut in 1980 SO2 emissions from existing large plants by 2003. My right hon. Friend is not moving away from that position, and any talk or chatter in the press is purely speculative.

Mr. Butler: Will my lion. Friend confirm that for the first time there will be an individual plant limit placed on Fiddler's Ferry power station for its emissions of sulphur dioxide? Does my hon. Friend accept that that will be very welcome news to the region?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, I confirm that that is part and parcel of the proposals introduced in the legislation that I referred to, and I am glad that he has welcomed it.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that diesel smoke is a major pollutant, especially in urban areas? It makes buildings dirty, fouls the atmosphere and is considered by some people to be potentially carcinogenic. Has the Minister discussed steps to control that form of air pollution with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport? Is this one of those areas where the Secretary of State's good intentions are being frustrated by his Cabinet colleagues, or does the Minister not have good intentions on this problem? Is there any Cabinet agreement on this or is this another area where we shall see no action from the Government to protect the environment?

Mr. Trippier: I have never seen my right hon. Friend frustrated: he is not the type, nor indeed is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pressed the Commission to come forward with those proposals for heavy duty diesel vehicles at the last two Environment Councils. We took that initiative and we are now awaiting the Commission's proposals.

Genetically Engineered Organisms

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental implications of the release of genetically engineered organisms.

Mr. Trippier: The environmental implications of such releases were considered in the consultation paper issued by the Department in June last year, and in the 13th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution published in July last year. Provisions to ensure the safety


of releases, and to control the conditions under which they occur are included in part VI of the Environmental Protection Bill.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a real danger that there will be a dramatic expansion of genetically modified organisms as a perceived means of solving some of our environmental problems? Does he accept that the idea of producing genetically modified animals and patenting them, as has been done with a mouse in the United States, is an absurd, unethical and abhorrent practice? There is an implication from the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office that the British Government would allow genetically created animals to be patented in this country. Does he agree that that should not happen, and that his Department should take responsibility for that, not the Home Office?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman suggests that such work may expand dramatically and get out of hand; in fact it is already expanding dramatically, which is why we have been pleased to take the advice of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. Most of the measures that it has proposed are incorporated in the Environmental Protection Bill. Part VI of the Bill sets up a flexible control regime, which will operate according to the degree of the risk to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Secretary of State will have the power to exercise control through consents, by notifications or by separate risk assessment. We shall address any wider issues at the appropriate time in the Standing Committee—as, no doubt, will the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of it.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Department's assessment of the risk?

Mr. Trippier: Obviously the Department accepts that there is a degree of risk, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the setting up of a specialist committee to which consents will be referred. If there were any accidents, for instance, we should prefer to be given the committee's expert opinion on how they should be dealt with. As I have said, the controls incorporated in part VI of the Bill are a result of advice given to us by the Royal Commission.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many county councils he proposes to poll tax cap in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: It would be quite wrong to speculate how many or which authorities would be charge-capped if we had to use our capping powers next year. If authorities insist on budgeting excessively, they will be capped; if they budget sensibly they have nothing to fear.

Mr. Boyes: Before going further down that road, will the Secretary of State take into account the unanimous decision of the policy committee of the royal county of Berkshire to condemn the fairy-tale figures involved in the Government's estimates of the cost of running and maintaining its existing services? The county is taking legal advice about the possibility of a judicial review to seek redress. Does not that show that the Secretary of State has

got the figures wrong for every local authority in Britain? Is it not time that he did some recalculation and got them right?

Mr. Patten: The spending increases that some councils are discussing would mean, on average, a 35 per cent. increase in domestic rates if the domestic rating system were still in operation next year. Even if we believed everything that every local authority said, there would be no conceivable argument for increases of that size.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the royal county of Berkshire, I am wholly satisfied with the arguments that we have advanced in the past. I hope that charge payers will find that the county council sets a sensible budget, and does not ask for percentage income increases in the high teens or low 20s.

Mr. Squire: While taking account of the Opposition's criticism of the community charge, has my right hon. Friend yet received formal notification from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that he is engaged in a modern version of the dance of the seven veils, and that the first veil has now dropped? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the dropping of the last veil will be a mutually rewarding experience?

Mr. Patten: I always want to be entirely fair to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Undoubtedly he would like an opportunity to come down to the House of Commons and explain the many alleged benefits of the roof tax, but the Leader of the Opposition stops him from doing so.

Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State explain why a Labour-controlled authority such as mine in Salford—which, despite experiencing all the usual inner-city problems, has made very prudent assessments—is having to charge £100 above the limit set by the Secretary of State because of the conditions that have been laid down? How can such an authority face up to the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward?

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman's authority, like others—including some that are Labour-controlled—could allow for an increase in income next year below the rate of inflation. It would also be perfectly possible for his authority to set a charge, as have others—some of them Labour—lower than that implied by the standard spending assessment.

Mr. Neale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is growing hope and expectation in Cornwall that he will cap the outrageous increase proposed by Cornwall county council, but that doubt about whether and when that may happen is causing considerable anxiety? The quicker my right hon. Friend can reach a decision, the sooner local and district authorities can plan for change, and the sooner local people will know what the new community charge will be.

Mr. Patten: I recognise my responsibilities towards charge payers, some of whom face outrageous bills. I cannot make a final decision until all local authorities have proposed budgets. We shall then present to the House any proposals that may be necessary. I assure my hon. Friend that we have the interests of community charge payers very much in mind.

Mr. Gould: Does the Secretary of State concede the overwhelming evidence, not least from Tory-controlled authorities and from many Conservative Members, that his projections of poll tax bills are complete and utter fiction? Does he agree that it would be better to make a clean breast of it and withdraw his figures than make vague threats about charge capping that can only confuse already hard-pressed local authority treasurers? If the Secretary of State must continue on his present course, will he at least publish the criteria on which he proposes to act, so that local authorities which have no confidence in the figures that he has presented so far may at least have some guidance on how they are expected to make their judgments?

Mr. Patten: We shall certainly be publishing criteria on charge capping, if we need to do so, before the hon. Gentleman publishes any statistics or figures about the roof tax. The hon. Gentleman may wish to discuss this point with the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. If some of the rumoured figures for community charge turn out to be true, it will imply a £3 billion increase in spending over the sum that we regard as reasonable. Is it the Opposition's view that we should provide £3 billion additional grant to local authorities in the coming year? That is the question that the Opposition must answer—£3 billion or not?

Tower of London

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people visited the Tower of London on Sunday mornings during 1989; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: The only part of the Tower of London currently open to the public on Sunday mornings is Tower wharf, for which admission is free. No statistics are compiled on visitors to the wharf, but it is estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 visit the area on an average Sunday morning in summer, and a few hundred in winter. Many summer visitors go on to enter the main Tower precincts as paying visitors when it opens to the public at 2 pm.

Mr. Gregory: Is not it a national scandal that the Tower of London—a national treasure trove—is effectively closed on Sundays in winter, and is open only on Sunday afternoons in summer? Is my hon. Friend aware that many British citizens and overseas visitors want to see the Crown jewels and other artefacts in the Tower of London? When will he unlock the Tower, or are its treasures to be seen on Sundays only by the ravens and beefeaters, while the Tower remains closed to citizens and visitors alike?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the practicalities and economics of earlier or all-day Sunday opening are currently under review. Sunday mornings have been regarded as providing, particularly in the summer, a much-needed break in the Tower's working routine—certainly for the warders and perhaps for the ravens, too. I confirm that the new chief executive of the royal agency is carefully examining the case for opening the Tower earlier on Sundays.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the Tower of London is still a very secure place, and given the Prime Minister's interest in security—judging from the preposterous Nicolae

Ceausescu memorial gates that she has had erected at the end of Downing street—would not it be appropriate, if we are all concerned about the right hon. Lady's safety, to bang her up in the Tower and throw the key in the Thames?

Mr. Trippier: I have a better idea. I recommend that the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) be locked in the Tower. That would increase the number of visitors. It would not deny those hon. Members the right to speak in debates because, when they spoke in the Tower, we could hear them down here.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a pity to waste a question on that sort of thing.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimated cost for collecting the community charge and the uniform business rate.

Mr. Chope: The estimates for these costs remain at approximately £400 million and £40 million a year respectively.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the cost of collecting the community charge is even more in excess of the original figure put forward by the Government than the poll tax is in excess of the Government's estimate? Is the collection cost more than double the cost of collecting the rates in 1988–89? In my local authority the implication of that massive burden for poll tax payers is that £1 in £5 of expenditure will go on collecting this unfair tax. Might not the Government remove at least that unnecessary burden for which poll tax payers never voted?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The cost of collecting the community charge is 4p in the £1. Depending upon which local authority area people live in, the cost might be lower. The Government made available a generous amount of grant to help local authorities with the cost of collecting the community charge.

Mr. Dunn: Is not it true that all significant political parties in the House are now committed to the abolition of the rating system? Should not the cost of collecting any alternative, especially the roof tax, be taken into account when debating the matter? Would not the roof tax be a very expensive burden on home owners, especially in the south-east, given the high capital values of properties there?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The roof tax would be an administrative nightmare and it would be incredibly unpopular. It would be a most unfair tax on home improvements.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the figures given a few moments ago by the Secretary of State, who said that the poll tax would amount to £3 billion more than the assumed level of spending? Does the Minister accept the professional advice that the Government underestimated actual spending by


£2·5 billion and that, had they taken into account the true level of inflation, their figures might have been more sensible?
Will the Minister confirm that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), he showed that he disagreed with the Secretary of State in relation to poll tax capping by saying:
Local authorities decide the level of their charges, and are accountable directly to their residents for their decisions at the ballot box."—[Official Report, 16 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 433.]
Will he confirm that any plans for poll tax capping have been scrapped, or was his reply last Friday incorrect?

Mr. Chope: I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said on the subject. When the legislation was discussed in the House it was clear that we were taking a reserve power to cap high-spending authorities, particularly during the transitional period. In view of the spending plans of some local authorities, most hon. Members will agree that it is just as well that we included a capping power in the legislation. Nevertheless, it is for each local authority to decide in the first instance what its budgeted expenditure should be. The best local authorities, where there is a will to keep expenditure under control, are coming forward with low community charges and low increases in expenditure.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend believe that the cost of collecting the community charge would be any different if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment amended sections 100 and 101 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 so that district councils that intended to increase their expenditure excessively and tried to blame the Government for their profligacy could be capped if their expenditure was under £15 million a year?

Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's point. There is frustration because a number of district councils whose expenditure threshold is less than £15 million have proposed substantial increases in expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be slow to condemn them.

City Grants

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of city grants that have been made during the past two years for projects in West Yorkshire for each authority for (a) housing, (b) industrial and (c) commercial; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Since May 1988, grants totalling more than £1·5 million have been approved for three housing, one industrial and two commercial projects in West Yorkshire. I am placing details of each project in the Library.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister talk to the chairman of Leeds development corporation about the way in which the corporation spends city grants, and in particular about his authoritarian and arrogant attitude which has put at risk an important development in Leeds—the opening of a hotel on a crucial site in terms of the city's overall development? Will the Minister hold such a meeting and

ask the chairman of Leeds development corporation to talk yet again to Holiday Inn hotels about grants and allow that important development for the city to go ahead?

Mr. Moynihan: I can do more than that. Apart from ensuring that the chairman of Leeds development corporation knows exactly what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that this morning we were in touch with the chairman's office. The chairman will be happy to have a meeting in person with the hon. Gentleman and any other colleagues who have an interest in the project.

Mr. Batiste: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, which demonstrates the Government's support for West Yorkshire, may I ask him to monitor carefully over the next two years the evidence for the take-up of grants across the region, particularly those that are designed to improve the housing stock? Is there evidence of home owners becoming reluctant to improve their homes as the horrendous implications of the Labour party's roof tax become more widely known?

Mr. Moynihan: On my hon. Friend's latter point, I am confident that that will be the case. We shall continue to monitor closely the impact of city grants on the development of jobs and the number of new homes coming on to the market, both of which are key criteria when assessing any application for grant.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) about housing was abysmal. There is a dramatic shortage of rented accommodation in West Yorkshire in particular but throughout the country in general. That has been caused by high mortgage interest rates. If there have to be city grants, will the Minister ensure that more of the money is targeted on new housing for rent, at rents which people in West Yorkshire in particular but throughout the country in general can afford to pay? There is a great need for such housing. I hope that the Minister will address that serious problem.

Mr. Moynihan: The record of city grants for housing is excellent, with 11,000 homes being built nationwide. I regret the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks. If he had concentrated on my answer, he would have heard that, of the six projects in West Yorkshire, two are commercial, one is industrial and three concentrate on housing.

Pollution Inspectorate

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for how many works each Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspector is responsible.

Mr. Trippier: There are some 10,750 works subject to control by HMIP and 76 field inspectors. Work programmes for field inspectors are set annually according to management's assessment of regulation requirements and priorites.

Mr. Wardell: As the Minister will know, many of those registered works are highly dangerous in terms of potential emissions to air. He will know of the two Rechem plants at Pontypool and Southampton and the Cleanaway plant at Ellesmere Port. Will he make sure that HMIP is no longer under-resourced and that there is independent


monitoring at HMIP laboratories so that the public, industry and local authorities have confidence that materials such as polychlorinated biphenyls are incinerated by the correct temperature and that no dioxins are formed?

Mr. Trippier: First, I have absolute confidence in HMIP. I am very proud that the Government set up that inspectorate and I find it deplorable that the Opposition lose no opportunity to talk it down and sell it short because of the work that it is trying to do. The integrated pollution control proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill will meet the concerns of the hon. Gentleman. They give additional responsibilities and duties to HMIP, and I know that the inspectorate is up to the task. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that a business such as Rechem, which is fully licensed and approved and regularly visited by HMIP inspectors, is not doing its job properly.

Mr. Wardell: I did not say that.

Mr. Trippier: No, but the hon. Gentleman gave that impression. As the company has been properly licensed and approved and regularly inspected, I can give that confidence to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Mr. Churchill: Following the environmental catastrophe involving the conflagration of millions of car tyres in Canada, will my hon. Friend issue instructions to Her Majesty's inspectors immediately to reassess critically any similar environmental disasters waiting to happen?

Mr. Trippier: I shall certainly draw that to the attention of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution which I am sure has looked carefully at the appalling incident in Canada. My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to that. The very tough measures in the Environmental Protection Bill will cover that contingency, but I am happy to draw my hon. Friend's specific point to the attention of the inspectorate.

Pharmaceutical Waste

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received with regard to the disposal of pharmaceutical waste.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. Friend has received many representations about the disposal of clinical waste.

Mr. Livsey: Why have the Government applied for a licence to dump pharmaceutical waste in the North sea in contravention of the 1987 agreement that dumping in the North sea would be phased out by December 1989? What does he think of the ad-hoc committee on dumping in the North sea voting by 13 to one against the British decision to dump in the North sea?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grants some licences for the disposal of liquid industrial waste in the North sea. That includes some waste arising from the production of pharmaceuticals. The waste is carefully monitored and is not toxic in the sea. We are pursuing land-based alternatives as an option in line with our obligations under the North sea conference.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to maximise the take-up of community charge rebates.

Mr. Chris Patten: The Government have recently mounted an effective public information campaign using television, radio, newspapers and magazines. This has been designed to ensure that all those entitled to benefit or transitional relief who need to apply for those reductions are aware of the action they need to take.

Mr. Hayward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best rebate that the residents of Bristol could have is a decision by Bristol and Avon councils not to impose a community charge 71 per cent. above the Government's estimated figure, producing probably the highest poll tax of any authority in the country? Should not it be rate-capped immediately?

Mr. Patten: I very much sympathise with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It is intolerable for some Labour councils and councillors who purport to be concerned about their community charge payers to propose indefensible increases in spending and in community charges which will clobber those about whom they pretend to care.

Mr. Pike: Is the Minister aware that however successful his campaign may be in spreading the word about the availability of rebates, many thousands of people will not get the rebates to which they are entitled, many thousands of those who get them will, in any event, be far worse off than they are now and many millions of people who are not entitled to rebates will suffer poverty and deprivation as a result of the poll tax? Will the Government give the poll tax the chop before they get the chop for introducing it?

Mr. Patten: The community charge benefits are more generous than those that were available under domestic rates. That is a major reason why the initial research on the community charge in Scotland suggests that low-income households are paying a smaller proportion of their total incomes by way of community charge than they paid in domestic rates. The rebates now available are more generous than those available under domestic rates.

Mr. Ralph Howell: As it is a main plank of our policy that as many people as possible should stand on their own two feet, how does the Minister square the fact that in 1939, 3 million people were in receipt of rates rebates, that today over 5 million people receive it and that when the community charge comes into operation, 11 million people will be deemed to be unable to pay the full charge?

Mr. Patten: The main reason for those changes is that, thank heaven, we are more generous today than we were in 1939 at providing greater assistance to those in lower-income households. Another reason for the increase in the past three years is that the community charge will be paid by everybody. Everybody will make a contribution. That is fair.

Mr. Cartwright: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the fact that the level of personal savings at which


entitlement to poll tax benefit is lost is exactly the same for a married couple as for a single person? How can that be fair?

Mr. Patten: For the same reasons as apply to other benefits. The issue has been taken up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we are widely publicising community charge benefit eligibility, many people find difficulty in discovering whether they are eligible to be assessed? As they are also having trouble understanding the bureaucratic forms, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we deal with such matters early so that people's anxieties are reduced and they learn at an early stage whether they are eligible?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was with those objectives in mind that we launched the advertising campaign, which was criticised by some Opposition Members, although I think that even they now concede that it was effective. I hope that it results in take-up being increased and ensures that people understand the benefits system more clearly.

Home Valuations

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the valuation assessments of homes which form part of, or house, commercial undertakings, both part time and full time.

Mr. Chope: The basis of valuation of composite hereditaments under the new non-domestic rating system is set out in schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The rateable value is derived from the open market rent obtainable for that part of the property used for non-domestic purposes. The domestic accommodation is not valued.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that hotel and boarding house proprietors are concerned about their assessment because they will be paying not only the poll tax but the business tax? Is he aware that that is bound to affect tourism, especially in the north-west of England and particularly in my home town of Southport?

Mr. Chope: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's logic. In his part of the world, in Sefton, business rates on average will fall by about 20 per cent. as a result of the new system. In his constituency, each individual adult will have to pay a community charge. What is unfair about that? It is reasonable that every adult—guest house proprietors and others—should pay some contribution towards the cost of running local government services.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is not it strange for a Liberal Member to complain about valuation when it has long been Liberal policy to have capital valuation and a local income tax? Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) would have the worst of both worlds if we adopted Liberal policy?

Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's point, although I think that it is Liberal party policy to have just a local income tax. If there were just that tax in Southport, the bill for a single adult on average earnings would probably be about £600.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many proposals for opencast mining have been referred to his Department on appeal; and how many appeals have been upheld.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Since April 1987, the first date from which comprehensive data are available, 57 opencast mining appeals have been under consideration with the Secretary of State. During that time 21 appeals have been upheld and 19 dismissed. Seventeen appeals have yet to be decided.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that the British Coal Opencast Executive has submitted an application to mine 350 acres on a site in my constituency which is surrounded by housing and is a few hundred yards from the city centre of Stoke-on-Trent, the 13th largest city in the United Kingdom? Will the hon. Gentleman review the guidelines by which he judges appeals to take into account the green environment and the human environment as well as the impact of such proposals on constituents' lives?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on a specific application. As one of those responsible for negotiating the present mineral guidelines when I was Minister with responsibility for coal, I am content with the fact that a balance is struck between environmental factors and the needs of coal mining. I should have thought that an environmental impact assessment would be bound to be requested as part of this and any similar application.

Waste Incinerator Plants

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on proposals for new waste incinerator plants under consideration.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members, local planning authorities and members of the public concerning proposals for waste incinerators in north-east England.

Mr. Steinberg: Incineration of waste is a useful means of disposal, especially in terms of combined heat and power, but environmental regulations must be carefully considered. Does the hon. Gentleman agree on the need for a national and regional strategy on the incineration of waste?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can go part way to help the hon. Gentleman. We have agreed to set up a linked public inquiry system to consider at least two outstanding applications for the construction of incinerators in the north-east. That will help the inspector and the public to gain a regional dimension. The inquiry will also be able to consider safety and technical competence.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that we do not want regional indicators? This matter is far too important for that. We should have a national debate and national policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that to hive off this matter for adjudication by an inspector, rather than for the Government to come forward with proper proposals, is to shirk one's responsibility?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend will agree that, as this country produces 2 million tonnes of hazardous waste a year, we must find ways of disposing of it or treating it safely. I think that my hon. Friend's question strayed outside planning matters. I repeat that, for the part of the world that he represents, we shall take a regional view through a linked public inquiry.

Housing Association (Rents)

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent increase for housing association properties in 1988–89.

Mr. Chris Patten: The information is not available in the form required. Increases for housing association tenancies re-registered with rent officers during the first half of 1989 were equivalent to an annual rate of 8 per cent.

Mr. Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, far from achieving the stated objectives of the Housing Act 1988, it costs the Government more to produce housing that is less affordable?

Mr. Patten: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. We are able to produce more houses with the same amount of money because we have attracted private investment, too. I am delighted that one consequence is that the Housing Corporation programme is increasing substantially.

River Pollution

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the National Rivers Authority is making in regulating the use of rivers and controlling pollution.

Mr. Trippier: The National Rivers Authority has been active in all areas since it fully assumed its responsibilities on 1 September 1989. As part of its day-to-day work on pollution control, the authority has successfully prosecuted a number of offenders. The authority has embarked on a number of reviews of policy areas, including the discharge consent system, and it will carry out a national survey of river quality in 1990.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that that is an encouraging beginning for the National Rivers Authority? Is he aware, for example, that before the creation of the NRA, the Thames water authority authorised discharge from its sewage stations and polluted the River Gade in my constituency? Is not the NRA a good sign that at long last some action will be taken on those problems?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yes, it is encouraging. The most important measure introduced in the Water Act 1989 was the separation of the poacher and gamekeeper functions. We now have what I consider to be the strongest enforcement agency in Europe.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the private notice question.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order arising from questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am taking the private notice question. Points of order come after Question Time.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the private notice question.

Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) want to ask the private notice question?

Mr. George Robertson: rose——

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking it. Back-Bench Members know perfectly well that I have allowed a private notice question, which is an extension of Question Time. We have not finished Question Time. I have called the private notice question, and if it is not dealt with now it will be cancelled.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking points of order. I call Mr. George Robertson. He should put his question now or not do it at all.

Mr. Robertson: rose——

Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the five hon. Members who are standing to sit down.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking it. I call Mr. George Robertson.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Bryan Gould.

Mr. Gould: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. George Robertson.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was a mistake. I call the hon. Member for Hamilton. Does the hon. Member wish to ask his private notice question or not?

Foreign Affairs Council

Mr. George Robertson: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Dublin yesterday.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented us at yesterday's meeting. Discussion focused mainly on Germany, the CSCE and South Africa.
On Germany, Minister Genscher gave a very detailed account of the prospects for German unification and gave assurances, which were widely welcomed, that the Federal Government were ready to consult their partners and allies on external aspects of the process.
Against the background of the dramatic changes in eastern Europe, the Ministers discussed the important role of the CSCE process, and in particular the summit meeting to be held later this year, in fostering co-operation throughout Europe. The Ministers issued a statement on this.
On South Africa, my right hon. Friend proposed that the Community should respond to the important steps taken by Mr. de Klerk by lifting the ban on new investment, which is implemented voluntarily in our case. As there was no agreement to take such a step collectively, the United Kingdom reserved its right to act nationally.
Statements on the following subjects were also issued: the code of conduct for Community companies operating in South Africa; Namibian independence; the worrying situation in the horn of Africa; the extension of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories; and progress towards a settlement of the Cambodia problem.
Copies of all statements issued are being placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for this chance to cross-examine the Minister on this vitally important meeting. Whatever gloss the right hon. Gentleman may put on the other subjects at the Council meeting, does not the outcome represent a further miserable humiliation for Britain, leaving us yet again isolated and derided as the last friend of apartheid? At a time when united economic pressures have just begun to produce some movement towards reform in South Africa, what conceivable reason is there for Britain, alone among all our allies and partners, to relax those pressures before the real reform takes place?
Does the Prime Minister and those who are forced, against their own judgment, to speak for her not recognise the perversity of her position? She is reneging on her own commitments, freely entered into, to keep sanctions in place at least until the state of emergency is lifted, until all political prisoners are set free and, as the Commonwealth communiqué said, until "change is irreversibly secured".
If he can, will the Minister of State explain how, when the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that our investment sanctions would be lifted come what may, at the selfsame time in Dublin the Foreign Secretary was offering to delay the decision? Who actually speaks for Britain, or is it again the case of the messenger not getting the message?
Finally, yesterday the Prime Minister sought to bolster her feeble case on investment sanctions by quoting BMW South Africa. Will the Minister now confirm that that investment did not come from Germany?

Mr. Waldegrave: The last point is the most easily disposed of because the Prime Minister herself made it clear yesterday that internal profits were being reinvested. However, that makes the point that it is childish to talk about an investment ban when some companies are massively expanding their operations in South Africa.
Our argument seems extremely strong. I am not sure that the Opposition yet understand that the measures taken by the Community on 15 September 1986 were explicit. They reaffirmed the urgent need for national dialogue across the line of colour, politics and religion in South Africa. They urged that, since the South African Government were then taking no steps in that direction, certain measures should be undertaken until the dialogue was launched. The dialogue is now launched, as all sides in South Africa have made perfectly clear, and will begin soon. Therefore, the reason for those sanctions—not all sanctions, but those sanctions—has fallen. In the hon. Gentleman's terms, they have been successful. We are talking about the 1986 measures, which were under discussion yesterday.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who seldom makes silly points, he made a silly point about the alleged difference between the Prime Minister's position and that of the Foreign Secretary. There is no difference. The Foreign Secretary made the point yesterday to colleagues that if there was a will to consensus, we would be happy to find consensus around the strict letter of the law of what was agreed in 1986. However, there was clearly no will for that, except for Portugal, which has supported us throughout. Therefore, there was no purpose in pursuing that argument.
The argument remains the same. If the hon. Gentleman's party, which is committed to mandatory comprehensive sanctions now—that is its position in its policy document—believes that that is the way to respond to the steps that de Klerk has taken, it is totally out of touch with reality.

Mr. David Howell: Can my right hon. Friend explain or account for the sanctions nostalgia that seems to infect the Opposition Benches? Is it not now plain common sense to accept that South Africa has entered into a period of transition, and, we hope, negotiations leading to a proper democracy in that country and the rejection of the hated apartheid system? Does it not follow obviously from that that not less but more investment is needed—in particular, to help the black communities, which have had a very poor deal so far, to develop? Can my right hon. Friend explain why Opposition Members and others are so determined to do down efforts for reform and to do down the black community?

Mr. Waldegrave: I genuinely find it difficult to understand the Labour party's policy, which has nothing to do with trying to produce a particular outcome in South Africa. It has something to do with the internal politics of the Labour party. It is not an example of a sensible policy but a matter of declaratory emotional statement. Those of us who are committed to trying to produce change in South Africa should be providing incentives for that change. We are not saying, "Sweep away all sanctions."


We are saying, "Remove some sanctions to give an incentive for further progress." I agree with my right hon. Friend about the necessity to develop the economy of South Africa—the best way of dissolving the apartheid system which, among other things, rests on a great deal of state control of industry.

Sir David Steel: Will the Minister explain how it serves British interests for this country to be identified with the interests of the South African regime of the past rather than the South African regime of the future and to divide the European Community in the process?

Mr. Waldegrave: We are identified with the steps taken on both sides, first by Mr. de Klerk, which have been welcomed by a wide grouping of opinion in South Africa, and we welcome the steps that many African leaders, including Mr. Mandela and Mr. Sisulu, have taken to respond. We do not think that our policy should be dictated by one group in South Africa, any more than their policy should be dictated by us. We do, however, believe that it is rational to seek a response to the event.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Did my right hon. Friend discuss in Dublin with his European fellow Foreign Ministers whether they intended to invite Nelson Mandela to visit them? In particular, did he consider asking Nelson Mandela to visit England after his visit to Stockholm and his discussions with Mr. Tambo so that we can be certain that our policy is co-ordinated with his in dismantling apartheid?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is well known that Mr. Mandela has said in public that he has received an invitation and is considering it; he has said that an invitation from the British Prime Minister is a very serious matter. It is no news to Mr. Mandela and no news to us that we disagree on this point.
The House has yet to get an answer on the Labour party's policy, although I asked for it last week. We still do not know whether Labour Members believe that mandatory comprehensive sanctions are what is now required. If Labour Members believe that that is what is now required, as against a response to what Mr. de Klerk is doing, they are totally out of touch.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Minister realise that the unilateral decision by Britain on lifting sanctions will undoubtedly mean that the Prime Minister of Britain will again be seen as giving aid and comfort to the leaders of the South African regime at a time when the other European countries simply refuse to take the same step? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why we should disagree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said that yesterday's decision will mean that Britain is once again isolated over sanctions? Was not the former Conservative Prime Minister speaking the truth? Perhaps the Minister would be saying the same if he was not the Foreign Office apologist for the occupant of No. 10.

Mr. Waldegrave: There are plenty of examples of countries in the European Community taking what they believe to be their national position over matters. It will be within the memory of the House that during the Falklands

war the Republic of Ireland chose to end unilaterally its sanctions against Argentina. There are plenty of precedents.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that mandatory sanctions remain in place and that voluntary sanctions are entirely a matter for companies—that it is for companies to decide whether they wish to trade in South Africa? If that is so, why do we need to say anything at all?

Mr. Waldegrave: The reason why we need to say something is that we issued guidance. Thankfully, we have no legal capacity to direct the investment of British companies, although I expect that the Labour party regrets that. We agreed to draw to the attention of companies our wish that they should not invest, and it seems a suitable step to take to revise that guidance, and, after my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reported yesterday's discussions to the Cabinet, that is what we are likely to do.

Dr. David Owen: The Minister is misleading the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot mislead the House.

Dr. Owen: Surely the Minister accepts that the decision taken in the Council on 27 October 1986 is binding on Her Majesty's Government. It is voluntary in respect of companies because, under British law, they cannot be bound by a decision—and that was always made clear. However, the British Government are bound and cannot unilaterally disavow a decision taken by the Council of Ministers. It is equally unusual for the British Government to do so when the Prime Minister, on 22 October last year, made it clear in Kuala Lumpur that she accepted that the first steps required the unbanning of all political parties—which has been done—but also the lifting of the state of emergency and the freeing of political prisoners. She made it quite clear that only when those necessary steps had been taken would it be right to lift some of the measures imposed by the international community. Surely the Government are acting unlawfully.

Mr. Waldegrave: There are two separate matters involved here. The right hon. Gentleman should be careful in his use of language. He has failed to understand the position, which is a little surprising for a former Foreign Secretary. There is no question but that we are within the law of the Community in choosing, after consultation with our colleagues—that is our obligation—to follow our national interests. I can ask my officials to help to educate the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. The issue of the Commonwealth measures is not at present under question. We are talking about the 1986 measures that were specifically aimed at producing national dialogue. We believe, and Opposition Members do not deny it, that national dialogue is about to begin. That means that those measures fall.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we in this country do not need to take any lessons from the European Community on economic sanctions? Is it not a fact that since 1986, when the agreement was reached, France has doubled its imports from South Africa and its exports have gone up by 20 per cent., Germany has trebled its imports from South Africa


and its exports have doubled? Do not those countries agree with us that if we are to defeat apartheid it will be by economic growth, not by economic sanctions?

Mr. Waldegrave: What my hon. Friend says is correct. All South Africa's principal trading partners have increased their trade to South Africa in recent years. In the words of the Times leader of today, there is a great deal of humbug about this subject.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Even when he tries to respond today, the Minister is in an uncomfortable position. He knows that, rather than greeting the release of Mandela with some sort of humility, because she played very little part in it, the Prime Minister over-reacted and immediately sought to reward the people who had imprisoned that man for 27 years. It is rather perverse that we are again isolated from not only our European partners, but the rest of the world.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman, who has such a fine record in trying to bring the parties in the middle east to the table, would surely not want to argue against us now when we seek to reward not the people who imprisoned Mandela, but those who let him out and are producing new policies in South Africa. They have said that they will put the building blocks and pillars of apartheid into the negotiations and are willing to enter into constitutional talks to bring about fundamental change in South Africa. If we are not to reward those steps by taking a step-by-step approach, the hon. Gentleman's approach in the middle east is completely forgotten.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sanctions are no more likely to help Mr. de Klerk in his quest than they would help Mr. Gorbachev in his?

Mr. Waldegrave: The parallel with Mr. Gorbachev two or three years ago is fair, I think. Little had changed constitutionally by then; indeed, little has changed even now, but we were right to respond to what he was trying to do. As well as welcoming the statesmanlike and sensible remarks that Mr. Mandela and other leaders are making in South Africa, we should try to add power to those on the white side who are leading the way towards dialogue.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I shall allow two more questions from either side, and then move on. We are to have a Standing Order No. 20 application and an important debate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that yesterday the Prime Minister sought to justify her position by saying that new investment was going into South Africa to BMW? Is he aware that her economic advisers have seriously misled her, that that investment was internally generated and that, in any event, it began in 1983? Since the right hon. Lady is getting such bad economic advice—and it is clear that she is getting bad political advice—would she not do better to take the advice of Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison and had many hours of discussion with Mr. de Klerk before being released, instead of listening to the wild men on the Conservative Back Benches?

Mr. Waldegrave: The disagreement with the ANC over sanctions has been long-standing. I suspect that Mr. Mandela would be as astonished if we reversed our position on these matters overnight as we would be if he reversed his. The disagreement is not crucial; we are discussing tactics. I think that I can persuade any open-minded person—there seem to be few such people among the Opposition—of the need to make a symbolic but practical response to the brave steps that Mr. de Klerk has taken.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government's reversal of their policy on new investment in South Africa is a welcome and positive response to the positive moves in South Africa to bring about the reforms that we all want? When the state of emergency has gone, and when the Group Areas Act and the Population Registrations Act—the twin pillars of apartheid—have been repealed, will my right hon. Friend speculate on whether the rest of the sanctions now imposed by Britain on South Africa will also be removed?

Mr. Waldegrave: When the day for which we are all working—that of the total destruction of apartheid—comes, we hope that there will be unanimous agreement to do away with all sanctions. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right—as long, that is, as the Labour party is not still stuck in some 1968 position paper.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Minister agree that the reason why there has been change in South Africa is that sanctions have worked?

Mr. Waldegrave: The underlying pressures for change in South Africa are far more formidable than the largely symbolic sanctions that are now in place—as witness the Labour party, which has argued again and again that they are minor. I notice that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is an honest man, agrees. So it cannot be argued that those sanctions brought about fundamental change, which is presumably why the Labour party still wants comprehensive and mandatory sanctions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Did the Foreign Secretary tell his European counterparts that it was pure hypocrisy on their part to refuse to pull out from sanctions, given that sanctions are being widely ignored in at least five other EEC member states? Will he invite M. Jacques Delors to initiate a special inquiry to find out exactly why West Germany has emerged as the largest trading partner of South Africa, despite the German Foreign Minister's appeal to us to boycott trade with South Africa? Is not that a typical example of Ministers agreeing to a policy that they are blatently ignoring in their own selfish interests?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that there is a big difference between those in the Community and elsewhere whose main policy on this matter seems declaratory—they pass motions, but that is about all—and those who are trying to engage in practical action to help to bring about change in South Africa. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is a diplomatic and tactful man and did not use the language that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I am sure that the facts were made clear.

Social Fund (High Court Judgment)

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the implications of the High Court judgment this morning regarding the budget limit of the social fund.
This is an important matter, because the court has ruled that the Government's budget limit on the relief of poverty is unlawful. The court has thus invalidated the centrepiece of the Fowler reviews of 1988. That is very important, because it is clear that tens of thousands of some of the poorest and most vulnerable families in the country have now been illegally denied their essential entitlements because of the unreasonable rigidity and inflexibility of the Government's approach.
It is a specific matter, because the court's judgment concerns specific cases. A family with seven children who moved from a three-bedroomed to a five-bedroomed council house when the parents were reconciled after separation were illegally refused a grant which forced their daughter aged 15 to share a single bed with their five-year-old girl. A 19-year-old who was forced to leave home by his father's violence was illegally refused a grant to buy furniture for a council flat.
The matter demands urgent consideration for two reasons. First, the High Court made it clear that the Government's power to withhold payments because the budget is exhausted is illegal. The Government must now immediately remove the budget cap that they have

wrongly placed on the essential needs payments for families in poverty. Those payments were running at £400 million a year in 1987. They were cut under the social fund to only £140 million last year, and there has been only a paltry £3 million increase this year. That is why the social fund refusal rates are now running at an iniquitous 50 to 60 per cent. and why the court found that a restrictive budget is incompatible with the proper exercise of discretion.
Secondly, the Government must now undertake to recompense retrospectively all those families whom the judgment shows have been illegally cheated out of their entitlements in the past.
For these precise and fair reasons, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House so that what is now shown to be a fundamental flaw in the Government's social security policy can be fully debated and an injustice put right.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the implications of the High Court judgment this morning regarding the budget limit of the social fund.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but, as he knows, I have to decide whether his application should be given precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirement of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, during Environment Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), revealed in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that he knew that my hon. Friend had registered a second home in Wandsworth on the poll tax register. That raises two important questions: how did the Minister come by that information; and, in the light of possible security implications, was the Minister wise or justified in divulging that information to the House?
On the first question, it is worth bearing in mind that my hon. Friend's Wandsworth address is not published in any public directory; it is simply not on the public record. The only way in which the Minister could have known that the address on the poll tax register was a second home was by having access to information that is specifically excluded from the public register. Practice note No. 6 specifically makes it clear that the register will use the name and initial and the address, but no courtesy titles or Christian or other names and will not indicate the type or amount of community charge or show any other information.
We need to ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, first to explain how he came by that information. Did he scour the poll tax register, and on what basis did he believe that my hon. Friend had an address in that borough? If that is not the case, was the information drawn to his attention, and, if so, by whom? Were civil servants involved in looking for the information and in drawing it to his attention? How did he know information which was specifically excluded from the public register? How did he know that my hon. Friend has registered a second home when he has not registered a first?
On the second matter——

Mr. Speaker: I urge the hon. Member to be brief—[Interruption.] Order. This is a point of order to me, but it does not seem to have anything to do with me.

Mr. Gould: I shall proceed to the second matter and I shall deal with it briefly, Mr. Speaker.
We need to know from the Minister what concern he showed for security when he decided to divulge that information to the House. I think that we are all aware that we are under constant instruction from the Serjeant at Arms to be very careful about the way in which we reveal information about our private addresses and movements. I think that the House has been left with the uneasy suspicion that the Minister paid no heed to those considerations, and that he wanted to use the information simply to make a cheap party-political point.
We need to know whether this was an instance of irresponsible free enterprise on the part of a junior Minister, or whether it was part of the responsible consideration of a Minister, taking into account all the factors that I have mentioned. I ask you to rule on the question, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps to persuade the Minister to enlighten the House and to explain his actions.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on such matters. I do not think that any of those questions was directed at me.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can respond, albeit more briefly. As the House will know—and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was entirely right to make this point—there is no public access to the full register. There is, on the other hand, public access to extracts from the register, which give addresses, names and initials of those who have registered, street by street. That information is available for Wandsworth—a borough in which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is well known and widely celebrated.
Secondly, it is open to every hon. Member to apply for confidentiality, just as every citizen may apply. There is a box on the form in which we can place a tick and so apply for it. I understand that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) did not do that—[interruption.] In that case, the hon. Gentleman's argument is with the community charge registration officer in Wandsworth. He—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Patten: Thirdly, my hon. Friend did not give the hon. Gentleman's address. He said that he lived in Wandsworth.
Fourthly, although it is true that my hon. Friend referred to the hon. Gentleman having a second home in Wandsworth, that was not a difficult thing to deduce because the hon. Gentleman said, in his question, that he was subject to the community charge in Coventry, where I understand that his name appears, whether or not with security advice, in the telephone directory. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very heavy day ahead of us, and I hope that this will not go on too long.

Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is lucky to live in Wandsworth and to be registered there; and instead of being cross about it he should have expressed his gratitude.
Finally, the hon. Member for Dagenham expressed concern about security. Next time that newspapers print details of the community charges paid by Ministers, including the Secretary of State for the Environment, in comparison with the rates, as they have already done, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman making a fuss about security.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to reflect on whether there is any possibility of a point of order on which I can rule. The matter that has been raised is not one for me to consider; the House could deal with it properly by means of a motion. I will hear points of order on any other subject.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reconsider—and this is a matter for you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that it is not a matter for me. It relates to the content of an answer to a question about which an explanation has been given. I will hear points of order on a different matter.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you will not make a ruling now, may I ask you to consider the matter later today? The central issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) does not concern me; it is reasonably well known that my name is in the Coventry telephone book, and that I live in the area that I represent. The central issue is the fact that the former leader of Wandsworth borough council—now a junior Minister at the Department of the Environment—can come to the Chamber and announce the details of where any hon. Member lives.
You are responsible for order in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I think that you should give serious consideration to where the information has come from. Has it come from the Fees Office? Has it come from civil servants at the Department of the Environment? Is it the result of a leak from Wandsworth borough council, in which the Minister still has some associates? Hon. Members should not worry about me: I shall manage. They should think about the principle that is at stake.

Mr. Speaker: I do not deny that this is a matter of concern, but it is not a point of order for me. I frequently may not agree personally with what is said at Question Time.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I trust that it is on a different matter.

Mr. MacKay: It is on a different matter, Mr. Speaker—one on which I believe that you can guide us, and with which you can deal directly. Can you confirm that points of order arising from Question Time should not be taken then but should be raised immediately after Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: We have been over this ground many times. Let me repeat, in case the hon. Gentleman was not here on those occasions, that if a matter requiring the attention of the Chair is raised at any time, it is dealt with at that time. That may happen during a debate, at Question Time or at any other time. I always take points of order if they require urgent attention, but most do not.

Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that it relates to what was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). Are you able to give any guidance about his proper course of action? It strikes me as unfair that he should be picked out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Should not my hon. Friend disclose the names of all Opposition Members who are living in Wandsworth? Personally, I thought that they were a bunch of dumbos who did not care what the local authority——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to continue discussion on the same subject. I will take points of order only on different matters.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I find it extraordinary that the Secretary of State should speak on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State. Surely it would be simplest for the Under-Secretary to go to the Dispatch Box, say that he has made an error, withdraw what he has said about my hon. Friend the

Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—and whatever he may have said about anyone else in this regard—and apologise to the House. The Under-Secretary could clear up the matter in two minutes: I appeal to him to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Clearly that is not a point of order for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I make it clear that I shall not take any more points of order on that matter. I will take a point of order on a different matter.

Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know of my great concern about the Register of Members' Interests and Labour Members. When a Labour Member chooses to——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would take no further points of order on the earlier matter. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had a point of order on a different subject to draw to my attention.

Mr. Ashby: My point of order concerns the Register of Members' Interests, Mr. Speaker. I have been most concerned for some time about Labour Members and the Register of Members' Interests. When an hon. Member chooses to live in the lowest-rated borough in London——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is cheating. He must not do that.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall only take a point of order on a different matter.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order., Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it concerns a matter of privilege, the hon. Gentleman must write to me.

Mr. Ewing: But I want to raise the matter on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on a different matter?

Mr. Ewing: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Then I will not take it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who are on their feet please to sit down. I will not take any further points of order on the earlier matter.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that it concerns an entirely different matter. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that a cowardly bomb attack was made on two members of the armed forces in Leicester yesterday afternoon. I am sure that you share with me an immense sense of relief that neither of those individuals, nor any others in the city of Leicester was injured. The incident highlights the continuing bombing campaign by the IRA on the mainland of Britain and the need for continuing vigilance on the part of all members of the public to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.
I am concerned, as is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), that the Secretary of State for Defence did not think it necessary to come to the House today to make a statement. Have any inquiries been made of you, Mr. Speaker, with a view to facilitating such a statement being made to the House this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: The whole House regrets such incidents, but the question of a statement is not a matter for me.

Mr. Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. Earlier the hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, I am sure—misled me. I would rather move on to the next business.

BILL PRESENTED

CHANNEL TUNNEL ACT 1987 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Robert Hicks, Dr. John Marek, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr Peter Rost, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. Mark Wolfson, presented a Bill to repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute rule motion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is the point of order that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wants to raise on a totally different matter?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Yes. As a result of events earlier this afternoon, it now appears that there is no protection for right hon. and hon. Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not do that. He must not rise to his feet and, when asked whether

he is raising a different matter, say yes but then proceed with the matter that he wanted to raise before. That is not honourable conduct.

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order, unless it is on a different matter.

Mr. Hughes: My point of order goes far wider, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not mind; I am not taking it. The hon. Gentleman has not given me any confidence that he will stick to his word. I am sorry.

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I ask hon. Gentlemen to resume their seats.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I order the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: One more chance. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat, otherwise I shall be forced to take action which I shall regret.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must sit down.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I order the hon. Member—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: resumed his seat.

Rape in Marriage (Offence)

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make rape in marriage a criminal offence in England and Wales.
Rape within marriage is already a crime within case law in Scotland, as was recently confirmed by a judge there. My Bill seeks to extend that to England and Wales. There is an anomaly in the law in England and Wales dating back to the 1650s. The law is outdated. It does not reflect the present reality of marriage where a wife is not a husband's chattel; nor does it reflect society's attitude to rape, which is viewed as a crime to be punished without exception because it is a brutal sexual assault.
I want to give the House a couple of examples. This week I received a letter from a woman who wrote:
This is the man whose wife knows everything there is to know about him, including how hard he can punch.
The other letter was published in a national newspaper earlier this week:
accusations thrown at me nightly … This did not hinder my husband from forcing me to have sex which I did not want. It isn't long before love turns to fear.
John Tilley, a former Member for Lambeth, Central, raised the issue in the House in 1983 when he said:
The circumstances in which rape is legal occur when the victim is the wife of her assailant. However unwilling the woman is, however fierce her resistance,"—
I might add, however brutal the advances—
her assailant has only to produce a marriage certificate to escape all legal blame or punishment."—[Official Report, 29 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 185.]
That cannot be right. A wife is not her husband's property. She has rights over her own body. Just because at one time she says, "I do," that should not deny her the legal protection later to say, "I do not wish to."
The legal anomaly applies particularly to women who are separated but not yet divorced. Their husbands, soon to be ex-husbands, can rape them without legal penalty. A survey of 1,000 women by Middlesex polytechnic showed that one in eight women were forced to have sex with their husbands despite clearly refusing. Another survey by Women Against Rape in London showed that one in seven were raped within marriage. A "World in Action" survey produced similar results.
Other countries, as well as Scotland, have abolished a husband's immunity from penalty. Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Israel, 18 states of the United States and three territories in Australia have decided that immunity is no longer appropriate.
The Government are stalling on the issue. Following the announcement that I was to present a Bill on the subject, they responded by saying that they were referring the matter to the Law Commission. In the Home Office Minister's statement of 12 February, he said that the Law Commission would produce
a working paper for consultation early next year. The Government will consider the conclusions most carefully.
"Consider most carefully" is parliamentary jargon for saying that it will be two or three years before they legislate. That means that many women will be unprotected by the law in the meantime.
The Government have three reasons for not acting immediately. The Minister said in the statement:

The question raises issues about the nature of marriage, and about violence in the domestic context, beyond the scope of the criminal law.
I cannot believe that violence in the domestic context is beyond the scope of the criminal law. Is the Minister saying that violence is acceptable in marriage? Surely not. I think that he is saying that the criminal law should not intervene in family cases. But it already does. To quote just two examples, it intervenes in cases of incest and wife battering. Why, therefore, should not the criminal law intervene in rape cases?
The Government are also trying to put off dealing with the matter because of the attendant cost. More women would probably live in hostels for battered women while their cases were being dealt with. The Government should not be mean; they should provide more money for the hostels. The fact that more money would be involved ought not to affect the principle that rape should be a crime.
The Government also say that rape would be difficult to prove in court. I acknowledge that, but that applies to all rape cases. It would be difficult to obtain corroborative evidence, but it would be for the courts to decide. The fact that a crime is difficult to prove is no reason for saying that it is not a crime.
A simple moral decision has to he made. I and many others believe that rape is unacceptable, regardless of where, when and against whom it is committed. Other people do not believe that, so they equivocate, as the Government seem to be doing.
There is immense popular support for this proposed change in the law. According to the Middlesex polytechnic survey, 96 per cent. of the women who replied supported a change in the law of this kind. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is one of the sponsors of my Bill. She is the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Labour party on this issue. The Labour party is therefore committed to changing the law if the Government insist on pussyfooting around. The Government ought to welcome the Bill. There should be no further delay.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I oppose the measure with some trepidation. The time of day has probably passed when much publicity will be given to the proceedings of the House. If it has not, I dare say that hatpins and needles will be sharpened against me and the views that I propose to put forward.
No one doubts that many men behave violently towards their wives. No one doubts, either, that many women behave badly towards their husbands. However, remedies exist—those of separation, injunctions against molestation and other court procedures—to protect women. Assault of husband on wife, or assault of wife on husband, is a crime and can already be dealt with by the courts.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I understand his reasons for introducing the measure. However, I believe that it is absurd. It is an example of hard cases seeking to make bad law. It is motivated by a combination of some distressed and unfortunate women, who need our help and support and whose problems probably need to be addressed further, and those whom Private Eye calls "wimmin"—the ghastly feminist lobby who seem to think that all men are evil and


that some are more evil than others, that men are made of slugs, snails and puppy dogs' tails and that women are made of sugar, spice and all things nice.
Whatever may be the hon. Gentleman's motive, I believe that his measure would lead to a gross abuse of the institution of marriage, for two reasons. The far lesser reason is that it would create two tiers of marriage. There would be the church wedding, where the wife would promise "to love, honour and obey until death us do part." Under those circumstances, lawyers would advise that rape was legally impossible until the courts had intervened. There would also be the register office wedding, after which rape would be possible, if the law were changed. We should avoid the creation of two different tiers of marriage.
The far greater reason is that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be unenforceable. The Criminal Law Revision Committee considered the matter. For a while, it thought that it was worth pursuing for parties who are not cohabiting. However, the committee could not define "cohabiting". Therefore it threw up its hands in horror.
Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, the man knowing that consent has been withheld. How on earth can it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that rape has occurred between a cohabiting husband and wife? Where on earth would one get the corroborating evidence?

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In the same way as in other cases.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Lady says that it could be proved in the same way as other cases. It is notoriously difficult to prove rape when people have a relationship. The law would become unenforceable. The law would become an ass. Put flippantly, if the good lady has "a headache" it would be inconsiderate for the husband to proceed. If she had a bad headache, would it be rape? Where do we draw the line and how could it be proved?
Undoubtedly there are evil men: equally there are a number of evil women. What impact would the changed law have on a manipulative wife seeking to humiliate her husband? Rape has to be reported to the police who are obliged to investigate. What would be the impact of such a police investigation on a relationship that would otherwise survive? What would be the effect on the children of a marriage of a police investigation on a charge that had been levelled in the heat of the moment and which on cooler reflection would be withdrawn?
What would happen, for example, if the wife succumbed and then regretted it and her husband in the hiatus of emotional confusion persisted when his wife said no? Would that be rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Would we define that as rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Opposition Members should address the position of the arranged bride who says no on her wedding night but whose husband is deaf to her pleas. Would that be rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] What would the burners of "The Satanic Verses" say about such a law?
It is well known that some women accuse their husbands of child sex abuse when they are seeking custody of their children. How much easier it would be to cry rape.
The hon. Gentleman called on other jurisdictions in support of his Bill. We believe that the laws of England are superior to those of other parliaments. If he wishes to call

the laws of other countries in support of his argument, does he favour the death penalty and would he support it because it exists in other countries?
The law provides most of the necessary protection for wives who are subjected to violence. The law quite rightly allows women and men to nullify unsatisfactory marriages. More law would not help marriage; it would damage it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: To the contrary?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must pursue his objection at least to the point of saying no. I shall put the Question again. Does the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Aye."] To the contrary? [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules. It is not in order to oppose the Bill, to make what is effectively a free speech, and then not to pursue the matter.

Mr. Marlow: No.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The Ayes have it.

RAPE IN MARRIAGE (OFFENCE)

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Paul Boateng and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn presented a Bill to make rape in marriage a criminal offence in England and Wales. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am taking a certain interest in the matter because next Wednesday I have a ten-minue Bill to extend the powers of the Security Commission to cases such as that of Colin Wallace. Is it possible for a Conservative Member to oppose the extension of the Security Commission and then not to pursue that by vote? Is that a new possibility?

Mr. Speaker: The rules are well defined on this matter. Any hon. Member who seeks to oppose a Bill must carry his objection to the point of saying no. It is not absolutely essential to call a Division on the matter or to put in Tellers, although that is generally done. But it certainly is not in order in effect to steal a speech and then get away with it.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you agree that what we have just witnessed was as close to a flagrant abuse of the procedures of the House as one could get? Indeed, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) had to be induced to say no. He then said no in a quiet tone, and he did not afterwards pursue the matter. I suggest, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that what he did deserves at least a reprimand from you.

Mr. Speaker: I took the charitable view—that it was ignorance.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not appreciate that it was required of me afterwards to say no. When you made the position plain to me, I was more than happy to do so.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You made it clear that you wanted the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to carry through his opposition. It was not clear to many of my hon. Friends seated towards the back of the Opposition Back Benches that he had said anything, your having requested him to say no. I should have thought that he deserved some reprimand for his behaviour.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House just heard the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) say that he did not appreciate what the rules were.

Business of the House

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe relating to Private Members' Motions, Public Petitions and New Writs may be proceeded with until Seven o'clock; and at that hour, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put successively the Question already proposed from the Chair and the Questions on such of the remaining Motions as may then be made, including the Questions on any Amendments thereto which he may have selected.
As the House will realise, the effect of the motion is to allow us to debate together the three procedural motions standing in my name before allowing the House to reach a decision on them. Before tabling the motion I had carefully considered the matter. I am anxious for the House to have full opportunity to consider the motions, to which some time has already been devoted. I therefore proceeded on the basis that it makes sense for all three to be taken together, because they arose from the same report of the Procedure Committee, which regarded and, indeed, designed the various proposals as a package which, taken together, would protect private Members' time for proper use. That is the essential purpose of the package.
You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that this position arises from your suggestion, recorded in paragraph 4 of the second report of the Procedure Committee for the 1988–89 Session:
On Friday 20 January 1989, the date of the most recent such occurrence, Mr. Speaker observed during points of order at the end of the day's business:'I … hope that we shall not go through this kind of thing again. It is for the Leader of the House … to put his proposals to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it will consider them and I hope that it will'.
As a result of that suggestion, the Procedure Committee has put this package of measures before the House. They have already been debated, as I say, for some time. So it is reasonable, and for the convenience of the House as a whole, that we should seek to reach a decision on all three motions by the time proposed this evening.
This is far from being a move sponsored or inspired by the Executive. It is sponsored as the result of the most wise authority—your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and the Procedure Committee. The arrangements for the debate are reasonable because if we can dispose of the motion in the next few minutes, we shall have another two and a half hours' further debate on the substance.
We shall then have had some four hours' debate on the motions, and I think that that will have been more than sufficient to deal properly and fully with them. Indeed, some hon. Members have expressed the view that we should have proceeded to dispose of them at the end of the one and a half hours we had last time. I have provided this additional time. I propose that we proceed on the basis that we dispose of the business motion with all speed and then proceed with the main debate, as I am sure the House would wish.

Dr. John Cunningham: I support the comments of the Leader of the House. I hope that we can use most of the time available to the House to debate, albeit for the second time, the substance of the procedural changes in the motions. We debated them for about one and a half hours a couple of weeks ago. With luck, we could have more than two hours' futher debate on them today. If we did, we would be approaching the time that is often set aside for the House to debate Second Readings of controversial Bills, when dozens, if not hundreds, of Members want to speak. Set in that context, it is not unreasonable for the House to be asked to come to a conclusion on this matter by 7 o'clock. I certainly have no objection to the proposal that we proceed in that way.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
'provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of the opinion that the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the Questions as aforesaid, interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned.'.
The motion and my amendment give us the opportunity to invite the Leader of the House once again to consider whether he wants to proceed with the other motions on the Order Paper, which would be subject to them.
I formed the impression earlier that many hon. Members wished to debate other matters this afternoon rather than these motions. An application was made under Standing Order No. 20 and, without giving reasons for not accepting it, Mr. Speaker, you said that there were many important matters before the House.
If the Leader of the House took the opportunity of this debate on whether the timing should be as set out and on whether the motion should be amended, he could get this nonsense off the Order Paper quickly and allow us to proceed with other matters. Even second Adjournments could be taken later on some of the issues that have arisen during the day. I know how much Ministers would dislike the idea of having second Adjournments about the arrangements in the Department of the Environment for vetting where hon. Members live and about the poverty fund issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). That possibility would be open to us if the Leader of the House did not proceed with the second motion.
There are other reasons why it would be wise for the Leader of the House not to proceed with the series of motions relating to private Members' business and with voting at 7 o'clock. There is no doubt that the Government found the motions very acceptable. Seven o'clock is laid down because it is a convenient time at which a great many Ministers—Members on the payroll—will be in the building and able to vote. It is the Government's intention, as shown by the choice of the time designated in the motion, that all those Ministers shall be encouraged to vote in favour of the line taken by the Leader of the House.
It is no use the Leader of the House saying with an air of wide-eyed innocence, as he did a few moments ago, that this is nothing to do with the Government and that he is just doing the House a service by tabling these motions and having a timing motion to ensure that the matter is dispensed with at 7 o'clock. That is absolute nonsense.
We all know that the Procedure Committee has had many reports, some of which have not been debated and

others of which have been debated, and rejected, at the instance of the Government and sometimes of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) knows that major, radical, far-reaching reforms proposed by the Procedure Committee, which could have given us some control over the timetabling of Bills and not left it all in the hands of the Executive, were not proceeded with. He knows that recommendations enacted as a result of the Procedure Committee's proposals on Special Standing Committees have not been pursued by the Government.
The Government pick and choose the reports that they like and put their weight behind them, and sometimes they get a little help from other quarters. That is what the Government have done on this occasion. They have put these motions before the House twice and have sought in this instance to protect them by the business motion.
If hon. Members doubt that the business motion illustrates the Government's desire to get these motions passed, let them recall the earlier debate to which the Leader of the House referred. In it, we did not merely debate these motions; we debated a proposal that it should no longer be possible for a ten-minute Bill to be moved on Budget day. I ask hon. Members to look at the Division list for that debate. They will see that the apparently innocuous, innocent, far-sighted, detached proposal of the Procedure Committee had the support of many members of the Government. It had the payroll vote and the loyalist vote to help it along. That is the intention again tonight.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not true that on that occasion the proposal was approved in order to remove the inconvenience to which the Tory Whips were subject because they had to sit upstairs for up to a fortnight before the Budget day ten-minute Bill was due to be chosen to make sure that a Tory Member got it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been disposed of.

Mr. Cryer: I am just making the point that the hon. Gentleman made, which is that the arrangement is not for the convenience of Back-Bench Members but entirely for the convenience of the Government machine.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I shall not stray into the areas which you, Mr. Speaker, say go beyond the debate. It is clear that, whatever the original intentions of the Procedure Committee about any of the motions, one can measure the Government's enthusiasm for them by the way in which they take them up, put them on the Order Paper and surround them with the necessary motions to make sure that they are passed.
I reiterated what happened to remind hon. Members that Back-Bench Members were in effect frozen out by the use of the payroll vote. Clearly, that is the intention tonight. Time and again, hon. Members will find that their rights are being chipped away by the Government who have the means to do so.
On some occasions hon. Members may feel that an individual right does not matter very much. But they will find when they add up the sum total that the practice has brought about a huge shift in the balance between the Executive and Parliament, between Government and Back Benchers and, indeed, sometimes between Front Benchers and Back Benchers.
We must think about the balance between Front Benchers and Back Benchers sometimes. I am just trying to remember when I last heard a private notice question asked by a Back-Bench Member from any party. In all sorts of ways, the House is becoming dominated by Front-Bench Members. Back Benchers in all parties must reflect on the importance of that.
There is a second reason why we must consider the business motion——

Mr. David Winnick: If there is a conspiracy against Back-Bench Members—I am all for defending the rights of Back-Bench Members—can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Member on the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), did not vote against any of the proposals, to the best of my knowledge? The Chairman of the Committee will be aware that the proposals were carried unanimously. If there is a conspiracy, if not against all Back-Bench Members but perhaps against the hon. Gentleman's party—if that is his argument—why did his hon. Friend not vote against the proposals in the Committee?

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend was much attracted to and voted for the proposals put forward—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) must be quiet if he wants me to answer his intervention.

Mr. Winnick: I was not talking to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend voted for the addition to the package proposed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who is a member of the party of the hon. Member for Walsall, North. The proposal was a compromise that would have given private Members the opportunity, not on a Friday but on a Monday, in limited circumstances, to propose additional time for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Members could be defeated or outwitted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or others in their party, but at least they would have had the right to additional time for the Bill. My hon. Friend voted for that proposal in the belief that, with the addition, it would be a reasonable package. His vote is on record in the proceedings of the Committee.
I was about to adduce a second reason why the business motion is important. It shows that the Government proceed day by day with motions that vary the effects of Standing Orders. What is this motion? It is a motion to vary the effect of Standing Orders to determine that a debate will end at a particular time and that questions will be put in a particular way.
Why do the Government insist that they alone should have access to that mechanism, while no other hon. Member has access to it in any circumstances? It is like an addict preaching abstinence. It is like a 20-a-day or 60-a-day man saying, "Don't smoke." Every day the Order Paper contains Government motions to vary the effect of Standing Orders. Often they are resisted, but frequently they are allowed through because they have become part of the fabric of the place.
If the motions are important and necessary to the Government, why are there no circumstances in which a private Member is entitled to seek the approval of the House to vary the effect of a Standing Order or to change Standing Orders? I remind hon. Members that the motion that we shall discuss later does not merely stop private

Members extending the amount of time available for a Bill. It prevents them from effecting on any occasion a change in Standing Orders by placing a motion before the House and having it carried. That relates not only to Standing Orders about private Members' Bills but to any Standing Order.
I do not know who drafted the motion. It may have been the Leader of the House. If so, I do not know where he obtained his advice. If he has any dealings with the Foreign Office know-how fund to explain to Parliaments in eastern Europe how to conduct their proceedings democratically, I hope that he does not draw attention to this device. It effectively puts the entire control of Standing Orders in the hands of the Government. That is how many Government business managers like it. They want the Government to have complete control.
The history of the House over the centuries has been one of the steadily advancing power of Governments over the House. The motion is just another stage in that process. Hon. Members may say, "Well, we do not mind this time because it involves something that some of us do not like, and do not want to happen, so we will allow it to go through." But one must assess every time the effect on the balance between the Executive and Parliament.

Sir Peter Emery: As the hon. Gentleman is making such play of that point, will he tell the House how many times or on what occasion a private Member's motion altered the Standing Orders of the House in recent times, in connection with private Members' legislation?

Mr. Beith: So what are we doing? Here is a crime that no one has committed. We are looking for a penalty for it and a way to proscribe it. A more compelling argument for not embarking on this nonsense in the first place would be hard to find. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure cannot find any instance of the crime having been committed, not to the disadvantage of the House but at all. Yet he feels it necessary to proscribe it entirely, out of the blue. I simply do not understand the reasoning.

Sir Peter Emery: Therefore, is it not obvious to the hon. Gentleman that on the two occasions when it was attempted, people found other ways of stopping the matter and wasting an entire two days of private Members' time? That is what the Committee is trying to stop. We do not wish to alter the great factors which the hon. Member for Leith suggests that we wish to change.

Mr. Beith: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop confusing me with the hon. Member for Leith. It is a confusion that I should not wish to encourage. Perhaps it was a slight slip of the tongue. I am the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
I was addressing the fact that the motion that we shall go on to debate does not merely proscribe what happened on the two occasions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It proscribes hon. Members from making any change in Standing Orders whatever. If hon. Members wanted to change the rule whereby hon. Members must wear a hat to be seated and covered to raise a point of order during a Division, they could not do so even if they invited the House to make the change, had the time available to do so and carried the proposal. Not only would the change never he made, the motion would never be discussed, because the Table Office would be instructed not to receive such a motion.
In a democratic assembly, we tell our Clerks that notices of motions shall not be received. That is an extraordinary thing in any democratic assembly. It is a rule under which hon. Members cannot even put a motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. His arguments will be more appropriate when we come to the motions. At present we are simply discussing the business of the House motion, which is a narrow motion.

Mr. Beith: I shall have more to say later. I was drawn onto that ground by an intervention. Just imagine if there had been a Standing Order that said that motions such as the one that we are debating shall not be received. I sometimes think that it would be useful if certain motions that the Government favoured tabling were subject to just such an instruction.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that he will find it difficult to try to produce an argument about the time limits without explaining—at some length, in my view—why the three motions have all been lumped together, and why they should be dealt with by, say, 7 o'clock. I have no doubt that it could well be argued by Clerks and others that in order for him to explain it to the House more fully, he would have to tell me and other hon. Members why the three motions are important and why the limited number of hours is not enough time in which to debate the matter. To put it in Derbyshire pit language, the hon. Gentleman is in a good seam of coal.

Mr. Beith: I should not want to hew too heavily at the seam that the hon. Gentleman may himself wish to hew a little later in our proceedings. However, he is right to point out that the lumping of the motions together, the time made available, and all the rest of it, are relevant considerations.
I have not yet come to that point in my speech, because I wanted the House, and you, Mr. Speaker, to consider how illustrative this motion is of the Government's addiction to what they tell others that they must never do. That is what that is all about.
We have a Government who cannot let a day go by without changing the effects of the Standing Orders. It is unhealthy for the House to find that every day the Government are tabling motions such as this. They table 10 o'clock motions and other motions which are described as "Business of the House" motions. That is the category that I am talking about. Such motions are scattered so frequently like confetti on the Order Paper that they suggest that the Government cannot manage their voluminous business without occasionally varying the effect of the Standing Orders.
That may mean that there is something wrong with our Standing Orders and that we should revise them. Private Members should address these issues. The corollary is that private Members must at least have their case for having access to such mechanisms considered. Several different aspects of this arise in the various motions.
It is timely and poignant that the Government should have tabled a motion to start the debate which shows exactly how prone they are to do what they are inviting

private Members not to do. The Government increasingly show a lack of concern for the powers that you, Mr. Speaker, enjoy—perhaps "enjoy" is the wrong word because the powers are sometimes uncomfortable to use—to protect the rights and interests of Members. That is why I have tabled an amendment to the motion.
I remind the House that the motion would be a precedent for many more like it and that it follows various precedents. As it stands, the motion would mean that, if we had had a series of statements this afternoon, with private notice questions, and many more points of order than you had to address this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the debate might not have begun until half-past 6. You would then have had absolutely no option but to put the Question on all those matters even though they had not been reasonably debated. That is why it seemed right to table the amendment and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting it so that we can establish the precedent that the Government should not casually take away our powers in their motion.
There is a significant lack of respect for any coherent protection for the rights of Members. If just one result of this short debate was that we could ensure that the Government cannot table future motions without including words such as those in the amendment, we would have taken a step forward. It might happen that, through no fault of the Government, you, Mr. Speaker, might be placed in the position that I have described, and that a matter might be debated far too briefly to allow any serious consideration of its implications.
In such a case, Mr. Speaker, you should have the power that you would have if the Government were asking you for a closure, when you would have the discretion to refuse it. However, in this instance, you would have no such discretion unless the motion were to give you that discretion. The words in which I have framed the amendment come from the Standing Orders. They are used in another context in motions after 10 o'clock when, if the debate starts late, you have the opportunity to decide whether the debate should stand adjourned.

Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the amendment would prevent Mr. Speaker from being, in effect, a pawn of the Government? Is not it therefore important that the amendment is passed, to maintain the strict neutrality and separation from the Government which successive Speakers have enjoyed?

Mr. Beith: That is immensely desirable. Indeed, that was my reason for tabling the amendment. I have thought about Mr. Speaker Lenthall this afternoon. Into my mind flooded what Mr. Speaker Lenthall said:
I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House shall direct me.
He might have been being asked to identify where hon. Members had gone or perhaps even where they lived, but he refused to do so. There are many occasions on which it is important that Mr. Speaker's position should be protected, and this is one of them. Therefore, I hope that the Government will heed my pleas, accept the amendment, and leave the power to protect hon. Members in the hands of the Chair.
Governments are prone to the temptation to grab any lever of power and to pull on it as hard as possible. If they are given the opportunity to push things through, they are but human and fallible, and they will do so. Even genial characters such as the Leader of the House——

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to my geniality for a second and acknowledge that the entire foundation of the debate and of the proceedings on which we have already spent a lot of time is a report that was devoted to private Members' time, and was prepared by Back Benchers. This is a debate about Back Benchers' rights, promoted by Back Benchers, for Back Benchers. The measures that are set out had the support of hon. Members of all parties, including the hon. Gentleman's party, and are designed to present the right balance, as they recommend it. The Government have brought them forward with that objective in mind. The hon. Gentleman cannot caricature the Government in this context for doing other than promoting the rights of Back Benchers.

Mr. Beith: I most certainly can, but I shall refrain from doing so because I thought that that was the subject of the subsequent debate.
One must conclude something from the way in which the Government have picked up the ball and run with it. That is perhaps an odd thing to say to a Welshman after last Saturday, but that is what happened. In this instance, when the proposals came forward from the Select Committee on Procedure, the Government said, with a glint in their eyes, "This is good. This is helpful to us. We shall ensure that we get it through because it stops the inconvenience of private Members' time which causes members of the Government to have to be in the House when they do not want to be and extending the time"—[Interruption.] No, I have taken some trouble to look at this issue and I am making the judgment that I believe that the motions will reduce—not add to—the rights of private Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, this is the substance of the subsequent debate. The business of the House motion is narrow. The hon. Gentleman is moving his amendment and he must stick to that.

Mr. Beith: I am trying to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I keep being sidetracked by the Leader of the House and others into discussing the merits of the main motion. I am asking the House to consider that the package has been sewn up in a way that happens to suit the Leader of the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not drawn and attracted to it, I think that he would have concluded that the proposals should go back for further discussion and consideration, rather than being sewn up in a package of votes at 7 o'clock on a Wednesday night when he hopes that he can get the maximum number of payroll votes into the Lobby to support it. I shall seek to argue that the package that has been stitched together should be unstitched.
The lumping together of this series of motions, including private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs, conceals the damaging nature of the wide restriction on the rights of private Members to alter the Standing Orders of the House. I cannot think of a council chamber in the country in which such a procedure would he regarded as acceptable or desirable. I cannot think of any debating body in which so enormous a restriction would be placed on the ability of its members to raise matters in the time that is supposed to be available to them.
We are talking about private Members' time. Why should not private Members decide what to do with it? We

are now debating this matter in Government time, and it is to the Government's attitude and their tying up of the measures in one set of votes to which I am now directing my attention.
I plead with hon. Members to recognise that, whatever their views on the issues in question, to allow the Government to secure this neat, payroll-supported vote on all the motions, will yet again greatly shift the balance away from private Members. The day will come when those private Members want to table a motion that affects some matter of Standing Orders, and they will find that, unlike the Government when they tabled this motion, somebody in the Table Office will say to them. "I am sorry, sir, but as a result of the motion that the House has passed, I cannot receive this motion." That was not the case with this business of the House motion. Nobody in the Table Office said to the Government's representative, "I cannot receive this motion," but that will be said to private Members if we proceed along these lines. It will be said about motions that hon. Members table in the future, in their time, on the day for which they have won the ballot.
I stress that such motions are balloted for and that an hon. Member is lucky to have the opportunity of a private Member's motion. Instead of being in the Government's happy position of being able to put anything that they like on the Order Paper whenever and however they want, hon. Members will not even be able to get past the door of the Table Office. That is why I believe that we should not take all these motions together in one vote at 7 o'clock.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief, because I wish to speak only to the motion and not about matters concerning the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
I remind the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that when he was a member of the Procedure Committee he often pressed the Government to provide time for the recommendations and reports of the Committee to be brought to the Floor of the House, and to give the House the opportunity to vote on those matters. That is exactly what is happening today.
We have had nearly two hours of debate on this matter, yet the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Leader of the House has been dictatorial. In response to an appeal from the hon. Gentleman and other Back Bench Members, my right hon. and learned Friend did not move the motions, to ensure that we could have a fuller debate. The Government and the Leader of the House have now provided that fuller debate, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been delighted, given the desire that he has expressed to ensure that these matters are fully debated and that we can proceed to vote on them.
All too often, the Government have been accused of arranging matters so that such recommendations have been debated on a take-note or similar motion that has not allowed the House to reach a formal decision. In this case, the Government are giving the House the opportunity to make such a decision and no one should complain if that decision is taken after nearly five hours of debate. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition, and one should praise the Government rather than damn them for it.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the Government have no real interest in this matter; it is entirely a question of private


Members' time and has nothing to do with Government or Opposition time. We are talking about time allocated to private Members, and many Leaders of the House and Governments have not given a tinker's cuss what has happened in private Members' time. They have allowed Members to do what they wanted: if private Members' time was wasted, that was a matter for Members.
The Government are now trying to ensure that that does not happen. They are giving the House the opportunity to decide on this matter, and to try to suggest that this is a package stitched for the benefit of the Government and to assist them is to mislead the House considerably.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are providing time, and I do not deny that. But would it not be a good idea if the House made up its mind that we should allocate the time ourselves? It is Members of the House who should determine the allocation of time; the matter should not be left in the hands of Government or Opposition Front-Bench Members.

Sir Peter Emery: I like the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but he has been a Minister and he will know that there is never enough time for the Government to get their business through the House or for the Opposition to criticise the Government. Although it is an immensely attractive suggestion that the allocation of time should be decided openly by Back-Bench Members, the chances of that happening are about as slim as the chances of a steel mill being built on the north or south pole.
I return to the motion. We need to decide on the motion so that we can move immediately to the debate. We should move to a proper and full debate on the three motions and reach a proper decision after four and a half or five hours debate. The Government are being most sensible, and those who oppose this motion are trying to waste time to stop us reaching the procedural motions, which they may or may not support. It would be much more sensible for them to speak on the procedural motions than to speak on whether we should or should not vote.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a curious set of circumstances. A number of hon. Members are disclaiming responsibility and denying any sort of Government intervention in this affair. As I recall, the business motion and the amendment were down for debate last Monday. A relatively small data protection order was also down for debate, and it was expected to go through quickly; only two hon. Members were present. I had checked before 10 o'clock that the business motion was a debatable motion. It was not debatable after 10 o'clock, but there was plenty of time available.
As it happens, I was not here for the main debate, which lasted about two hours, because I was attending a lengthy sitting of a Select Committee dealing with a lot of evidence that had just been produced about an hon. Member. I shall not go further down that road, except to say that it took a long time and that was what kept me from the Chamber.

Mr. Skinner: You mean Browne.

Mr. Cryer: I do indeed.
I wanted to debate this issue but I was prevented from doing so by the Government's Deputy Chief Whip. He and his colleagues went out and found some Conservative Back-Bench Members to speak at length on the data protection order so that we reached 10 o'clock and were effectively denied the time to debate the motion. Why should the Government do that if they are not——

Mr. Skinner: Up to summat.

Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend says, if they are not up to something—if they are not concerned to exclude the possibility of our debating the motion.
It struck me as curious and interesting, to say the least, that the Government should get up to such tricks when there was no pressure on them and nothing crucial about the affair. They simply wanted to stop the business motion being debated, and possibly voted on because with the few hon. Members about at the time, they might have lost the vote. So far from being disinterested, on Monday the Government planned to prolong a debate so that the motion could not be discussed at a time when they may not have had sufficient numbers present. The Government were involved in supporting the business of the House motion. There is no doubt about it.
The Whips then told me that the motion would be on the Order Paper today. Why today, and why at this time? Because they know that they have the troops here and that they can get the motions through in a neat and businesslike manner, so that by 7 o'clock the whole thing is polished and finished. That is their aim and purpose and it makes me very suspicious.
I am not too keen on consensus business motions or consensus motions affecting the Standing Orders of the House. I remember the last time this happened. At one time, the House had genuine Consolidated Fund motions. I say this, Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation of my attitude to the business motion and of my support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We used to have a proper Consolidated Fund debate, and the House disciplined itself well. If a group of Back Bench Members wanted to speak on a topic, they could. Up to 20 Members might have a good debate on a subject that was important to them. The debate went all through the night.
But there was an inconvenience—the Government had to have 100 Members present for the closure motion the following morning. It was getting difficult to phone round and get people here at 9 o'clock, so the Government thought, "Tut, tut, let's get rid of that inconvenience and get a series of timed Adjournment debates that finish at 9 o'clock—or 8 o'clock if a suitable business motion is tabled—then we will have no difficulties." In 1981, the Opposition were foolish enough to go along with that. They said, "When we are in government it will be terribly inconvenient for us, so we shall make sure that we do not have to telephone round."
The Opposition lost a tactical advantage. One of the few occasions since 1979 when we had wrung real concessions from the Government was when we took the Consolidated Fund through the night and won concessions on housing legislation to exclude old people's dwellings. Therefore, it was a loss all round. It is relatively easy for the Government to get a majority of 100, and private Members lost significantly.
The business motion affects not only private Members' motions, but public petitions and new writs.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I can reinforce my hon. Friend's argument about the Consolidated Fund. There was a time when the Consolidated Fund debate started no later than 4 pm, possibly after a ten-minute Bill, but even that was discouraged. We are now lucky if the Consolidated Fund debate starts before 10 pm. That is because it is thought that the motion for the recess Adjournment should be spatchcocked in with the Consolidated Fund. I accept entirely that this is a cross-party matter, in the sense that the late John Silkin agreed to it without consultation. It is no good our standing up and saying that the Tory Government are doing this because, in fairness, an agreement was made between those on the Front Benches, but it is a serious erosion of rights.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realize that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) gave the Consolidated Fund as an analogy, but I am sure that he will now come back to the business of the House motion, which deals with the length of time for which the later motions can be discussed.

Mr. Cryer: I was just about to come to another analogy, the three-hour Adjournment debate. It used to be open ended, but now it lasts for three hours. That is also for convenience——

Mr. Dalyell: It used to be on a different day.

Mr. Cryer: It is on a different day generally, but not necessarily.
The amendment provides:
if Mr. Speaker shall be of the opinion that the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the Questions as aforesaid, interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned.
What is wrong with that? It allows Mr. Speaker some discretion. Mr. Speaker tends to take careful notice of any representations that the Government or the Opposition make about proceedings in the House, as he is bound to do. Under the amendment, he could use his discretion. As I said earlier, the amendment prevents Mr. Speaker from becoming the Government's pawn. Under the business of the House motion, Mr. Speaker does not have any discretion, but must put the motion at 7 o'clock. He is not allowed to make a judgment about the length of time that has been taken for the debate.
I shall make another analogy. If Mr. Speaker was not allowed any discretion and a Standing Order stated that, after a debate had been under way for a minimum of one hour, Mr. Speaker had to accept a closure motion, it would weaken and seriously change the procedures in the House. At present, Mr. Speaker has some discretion.
It is generally calculated that, after two or two and a half hours Mr. Speaker will take a closure motion. That depends on the nature of the amendment, but Mr. Speaker has some discretion. The occupant of the Chair should not be able to say, "It is 7 o'clock and time that the debate was finished. Let us put the Question." Mr. Speaker should have some discretion.
Some people take a different view; they say that Speakers are part of the establishment and do not do anything out of line. I do not entirely share that view. There have been occasions when a Speaker has taken a position that the Government do not like because he has

decided not to accept either a closure motion or a business motion. The amendment will give greater discretion and will maintain, enhance and improve the independence of Mr. Speaker and his deputies. That is an important element.
Why this amendment to this motion? It is because the business motion relates to three items: private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs. If we pass this motion—I have no doubt that, if it were put to the vote, the payroll vote would be in the Aye Lobby—we would be debating three important subjects wrapped into one in under two hours.
The Government might say, "But you are taking time now to debate this issue. Surely the best thing to do is to stop talking and get on with debating the motion." But why was not that discretion allowed to me last Monday night? If the Government are so keen about debating the motions, why on Monday night did the Government Deputy Chief Whip organise a debate to exclude any business of the House from being debated? I am seizing the only opportunity that I have had to raise the issues and reservations that I consider important.
It has already been said that the Select Committee produced a recommendation and that, as it has about a dozen Back Benchers, and a former Minister chairing it, its recommendation should be accepted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said at the time, Select Committee recommendations are not accepted in this place simply on the nod.
I can well remember a Select Committee that spent many months examining Albert Roberts and Reggie Maudling. It heard a great deal of evidence and took enormous care, and the recommendations were rejected. Therefore, I do not entirely accept the idea that because a Select Committee makes a recommendation, we must of necessity follow it. The business motion, putting the private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs together, would confine Back-Benchers, not expand then. opportunities.
I was out of the House for four years, as hon. Members know. In those four years, Back-Benchers' rights have unquestionably been eroded in all sorts of ways. Cynicism has developed because of the way the Government try to dominate the Order Paper and there is greater organisation of procedure. The initiative, which could have been usefully deployed, has been taken away.
I do not want to sound like a 19th-century constitutionalist, but I have been in a modern assembly—the Common Market. I shall touch on the analogy only briefly. In that assembly everything—including the chairs of the various political groupings—is planned by committee and everyone works well together. It is amazing how Le Pen gets on with all the chairmen of the other groups inside the Common Market assembly. It is all stitched up. In the European legislature there are no opportunities to raise subjects in the wide variety of ways that we have in this place. Some may say that my position is rooted in the 19th century, but I disagree. This Parliament gives Back-Benchers the chance to use procedure to raise issues, and that is important. I am unhappy with the business motion because it will restrict Back-Benchers' opportunities to discuss matters.
Three important issues are covered in these motions—private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs. Public petitions and new writs have been discussed in the House in recent months. Some Back Benchers


brought in petitions on Friday mornings, possibly to delay the business set down for the day. Anyone can use that technique. I remember discussing the Sessional Orders of the House, when people said that I was playing to the cameras. But anyone could have discussed them, just as anyone could have presented petitions on a Friday. Some say that large numbers of petitions are presented on Fridays to delay business, and that that is an abuse. It is not. Groups of hon. Members or an individual Member may want to delay private Members' legislation at any time, and this is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the later debate.

Mr. Cryer: I am trying to suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it will take a great deal of time to discuss this important subject in detail. The business motion tabled by the Leader of the House—I am glad to see that he is still awake—imposes an important new restriction. We cannot encompass the subject of public petitions by 7 pm. I know that the business motion is not identical to the three motions following it, but we must be able to touch briefly on subjects the time for which the business motion seeks to restrict.
New writs are also significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the most recent exponent of the art of moving a new writ, would need at least half an hour in which to explain his views on moving new writs. The House is starting to fill up with Members interested in this subject—[Laughter.] There are still a few empty seats left should other hon. Members want to participate quickly in the next 40 minutes——

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises, as a Committee Chairman, that an awful lot of Select Committees are meeting in the Corridor upstairs, as many of them do at this time on Wednesday afternoons. Those attending them may want to take part in the debate, too.

Mr. Cryer: I could not take part in the original debate because I was serving on a Select Committee——

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recollect how important it was, before the writ for the Richmond, Yorks by-election was moved, to hear in detail about the role of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the protégé of the Leader of the House who, I notice, is burying his head deeper and deeper in his documents because he does not like this subject? It was important to explain in some detail the improper use of a Law Officer's letter, as it was subsequently proved—after all, we have Sir Leon Brittan's word for it—that he would not have acted as he did had not Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it impossible to relate that intervention to the motion.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has pointed out the intricate detail involved in debating new writs. Moving the new writ in question took up a great deal of time; my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover spoke on it for about three hours——

Mr. Skinner: I was never out of order once.

Mr. Cryer: Unusually for my hon. Friend, he has just commented from a sedentary position that he was never out of order. He had prepared extremely carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has emphasised the value of the new writ procedure. It is important to bear that in mind when assessing the fourth motion today. Without enough time we cannot do justice to new writ motions——

Sir Peter Emery: None of these rights is being taken away from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or any other hon. Member, except in as much as these procedures should not take place in private Members' time. It is good of the Government to say that these procedures shall not interfere with private Members' time and to stipulate that they must be carried out in Government time. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted with that.

Mr. Cryer: Motion No. 4 refers to private Members' Bills being given precedence. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is now providing us with a snapshot of the sort of views that he is going to express—but he cannot express them all in an hour and a half. Judging from the thickness of his pile of notes——

Sir Peter Emery: indicated dissent.

Mr. Skinner: He has got it all in his head.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has spent hours in the Select Committee and he wants to give the House a great deal of information on this subject.
My point is that the Government are going to restrict the time available to Back Benchers. New writs can be moved, first, because an hon. Member wants to bring one to the attention of the House; or, secondly, because a Back Bencher wants to use up a certain amount of time because he does not like a Bill that is coming up for consideration.
In any debate we need to consider the conventions of the constitution——

Mr. Skinner: May I put my hon. Friend right? On neither occasion when I moved a writ—before the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill or before the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—did I stop anyone moving a Bill. I prevented people from queue jumping. Enoch Powell was trying to jump the queue with his Unborn Children (Protection) Bill and the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was trying to do the same with another Bill. It was not a question of trying to stop the Bills, but of an attempt being made to jump the queue and move ahead of other private Members' Bills.

Mr. Cryer: That fits in with what I am about to say. By rushing the motion through, there will not be time to examine the subtleties of the way in which the House operates. Those subtleties have developed over many years, but some people question their value and say that we should start with a shining new constitution. The experience of procedures and the reality of the way in which people work together have developed rules of thumb that are very helpful.
Perhaps I could give an example to illustrate the point. An hon. Member who wishes to raise a point of order during a Division has to put something on his head. At first sight, that seems daft and hon. Members feel foolish putting a hat on. People start to sing songs such as "Give Me the Moonlight" and we all make a joke about it. Its


purpose is to reduce the possibility of people raising points of order during a Division because that is an awkward time. The wearing of a hat is a hurdle for a Member who wishes to raise a point of order. It seems simple, but it works rather well.
En passant, I shall elaborate on our voting system. People ask me why we cannot have an electronic voting system which would be slicker and more efficient; hon. Members would not have to move from their places and we could get more votes through more quickly. People say that, if we had very long-range telephones hon. Members who were scattered all over the world on fact-finding missions on behalf of Select Committees could telephone their votes to the House. But the voting system that we have is simple and effective and works well. It also makes it difficult to cheat. We cannot discard all those ideas—throw them out of the window—without long and serious discussion. That is why the business motion is less than adequate. We have to consider the conventions of the constitution.
Our Standing Orders are varied by the motions. "Erskine May" gives us written opinions that have been accumulated over hundreds of years, and we also have the conventions of the constitution. If we are properly to consider the business motions, we should have to consider those matters too. I shall give a couple of examples about how we could include those in the discussion.
There is a convention that private Members' Bills brought before the House on Fridays will get through, as long as they are not extremely controversial. If they attempt to remedy a relatively minor matter, something that people accept as a matter of urgency, they will get through. There must be 100 hon. Members present to ensure that such a Bill gets a Second Reading, but by and large, it will reach that stage.
It is a different matter in the case of highly controversial subjects that split all the parties in the House. Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members have different views on abortion. The difficulties of using the private Member's Bill procedure properly and within the rules are manifold. I am not speaking specifically about abortion proposals that have been presented to the House over many years, but about any major matter of great controversy. The private Member's Bill procedure is not designed for that.

Mr. Helfer: What about hare coursing?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend gives a good example. Hare coursing is controversial and some people, mainly Tory Members, do not like any attempt to interfere with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton has tried to promote legislation on the matter on at least one occasion.

Mr. Heller: I have tried three times.

Mr. Cryer: In such cases, Tory Members organise petitions or new writs, although I do not think that there were any new writs in relation to hare coursing. Certainly they used the measures available to them in this place, and that reinforces the conventions of the constitution. We need a Labour Government committed to a programme in support of animals to eradicate hare coursing and all other examples of cruelty to animals. We could try a private Member's Bill but we know the obstacles and hurdles that exist. Therefore, it is vital to discuss the conventions of the constitution, those unwritten areas that make it difficult to define what sort of Bill will get through the House. The

motions try to say that we must have a path for private Members' legislation that is free from any attempt to delay or obstruct it.
As I said, the Opposition used to have the opportunity to delay and obstruct on the Consolidated Fund. The Opposition can do that to Government legislation, although we do not do it often. On one glorious occasion, we used that opportunity and as a result, the compulsory sale of old people's dwellings was removed from legislation to sell council dwellings. We have lost such opportunities and the Consolidated Fund is a pale shadow of what it used to be. That is why I am concerned that Back Benchers should not give up something that they could use in this place as part of the to-ing and fro-ing in the production of legislation.
The production of legislation should never be easy. It should always be subject to hurdles because it affects thousands of people. I chair the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments because I am concerned to see that the powers that are given to Ministers are not used in an arbitrary or unfair manner. The same applies to the business motion. I guarantee that the business motion will be supported by the payroll vote. There may be some diffident Tory Members, but I do not think that there are many.

Mr. Skinner: It is not as easy as my hon. Friend makes out, because some of the payroll vote have gone to the Savoy, to the big spree of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Some of them have been told not to stop for long, and some of them do not want to stop for very long, including the Prime Minister. We are now reaching the hour when it is conceivable that the Government have the necessary 100 Members to close the debate. I rather suspect that the presence of the Chief Whip means that he might shortly move the closure now that the junketing is about to finish.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend shocks me. I am fairly cynical about this place, but I cannot believe that the Government are manoeuvring. I see the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), kneeling at the feet of the Leader of the House. Is that in order? He should know the rules of this place. I thought that somebody was about to use a sword on a delicate spot.
If what my hon. Friend says is true, it appears that the Government are preparing to muster 100 Members for the closure. That shows that our fears are very real. This is a Government-inspired manoeuvre. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said—the Government Chief Whip was not here at the time and missed the comments—there are a lot of Select Committee reports on procedure. We have not had an explanation of why this report has been put forward today. I know that the Leader of the House is not used to the job but he gave a paltry speech.
I know that the Chief Whip desperately wants to hear what I am saying, and does not want to plot any more to bring about the downfall of yet another Back-Bench comment on the matter in hand.
The Leader of the House hardly gave us an explanation, but he gave the excuse that this has been done before. The Government took out the ten-minute Bill slot on Budget day. Three years ago they took it out by convention, and on the other occasion by practicality. This issue merited a
longer speech from the Leader of the House, not simply to soak up time, but to explain why the Government have chosen this report out of the rich variety of Select Committee reports on procedure. They are lined up on the shelves, gathering dust, awaiting their time on the Floor of the House.
It is not as though the motion says that we will finish at 7 o'clock so that we can deal with more Procedure Committee reports. We are finishing them so that we can get items 2, 3 and 4 on the Order Paper through as rapidly as possible—like a dose of salts. I think that I am right to mention my reservations and suspicions about why this is going on.
Some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) may have served on the Select Committee on Procedure and perhaps they have come to an agreement. I wonder whether the Government have put down such a motion to get this business speeded through using a Select Committee report. Not only this Select Committee report but all the others need debating time, but they are not getting the time allocated to them. It is a conundrum.
I suspect that the reason for the motion is not that the Government want to help private Members but that they want to make things easier for themselves. That is what Governments generally wish to do. Therefore, they have moved motions which will exclude private Members from participating in the procedure of private Members' motions, which will reduce private Members' rights to present public petitions—they will have to choose other items and there will be a time limit—and which will affect the operation of new writs. Ordinary Back-Benchers can use their ingenuity to bring subjects to the attention of the House, through debate on motions for new writs. It gives them an opportunity that would otherwise have been put to one side. When a new writ is moved, it is for the benefit of the House but probably for the inconvenience of the Government.

Mr. Beith: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member's train of thought, but sometimes when new writs are moved—as on this occasion when we are discussing the new business motion at some length—they are a sign that the Government are not listening to the general anxieties of some hon. Members. New writs are one of the means by which those anxieties can be expressed. The hon. Member's experience, and my own, shows that if one does not inconvenience a Government they will never listen.

Mr. Cryer: That is absolutely right. This——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 94.

Division No. 88]
[5.44 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Mon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy





Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harris, David


Blunkett, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boswell, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bowis, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brazier, Julian
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Irvine, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Irving, Sir Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Jack, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Jackson, Robert


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butler, Chris
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butterfill, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Key, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Kilfedder, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carrington, Matthew
Knapman, Roger


Cash, William
Knowles, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lang, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Latham, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Churchill, Mr
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Colvin, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Couchman, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Lord, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
McAvoy, Thomas


Curry, David
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Devlin, Tim
Maclean, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dixon, Don
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maples, John


Dunn, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Durant, Tony
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marlow, Tony


Emery, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evennett, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mellor, David


Favell, Tony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Miller, Sir Hal


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mills, lain


Fishburn, John Dudley
Miscampbell, Norman


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Moate, Roger


Foster, Derek
Monro, Sir Hector


Franks, Cecil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Freeman, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fry, Peter
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mudd, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neale, Gerrard


Goodlad, Alastair
Needham, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nelson, Anthony


Gorst, John
Neubert, Michael


Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grist, Ian
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ground, Patrick
O'Brien, William


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil






Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thorne, Neil


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Viggers, Peter


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Fallon.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





NOES


Allen, Graham
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Anderson, Donald
Howells, Geraint


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beith, A. J.
Johnston, Sir Russell


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lamond, James


Bradley, Keith
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Leighton, Ron


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Buckley, George J.
Livingstone, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Maclennan, Robert


Cartwright, John
McWilliam, John


Clay, Bob
Madden, Max


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Martlew, Eric


Dalyell, Tarn
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eadie, Alexander
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fearn, Ronald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter L.


Flannery, Martin
Prescott, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Primarolo, Dawn


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Richardson, Jo


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Rooker, Jeff


George, Bruce
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sheerman, Barry


Hardy, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hinchliffe, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel





Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendent be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 84,Noes 233.

Division No. 89]
[5.56 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kennedy, Charles


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lamond, James


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Leadbitter, Ted


Battle, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Beith, A. J.
Livingstone, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclennan, Robert


Bradley, Keith
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Cartwright, John
Michael, Alun


Clay, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cryer, Bob
Mullin, Chris


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, Dave


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Patchett, Terry


Day, Stephen
Pike, Peter L.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alexander
Primarolo, Dawn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Richardson, Jo


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Rooker, Jeff


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Salmond, Alex


Fearn, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Soley, Clive


Flannery, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Flynn, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Fyfe, Maria
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Gale, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Heffer, Eric S.
Worthington, Tony


Hinchliffe, David



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Richard Livsey and Mr. Alex Carlile.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowis, John


Allen, Graham
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Atkins, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buckley, George J.


Beckett, Margaret
Budgen, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon


Benyon, W.
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butler, Chris


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butterfill, John


Blunkett, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carrington, Matthew


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Peter
Chope, Christopher






Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Irving, Sir Charles


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dixon, Don
Jackson, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eastham, Ken
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Foster, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Franks, Cecil
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


George, Bruce
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxton, John


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, lain


Hardy, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Sir David


Haynes, Frank
Moate, Roger





Monro, Sir Hector
Sims, Roger


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Speed, Keith


Morrison, Sir Charles
Speller, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mudd, David
Stern, Michael:


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Viggers, Peter


Prescott, John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, Sir John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe relating to Private Members' Motions, Public Petitions and New Writs may be proceeded with until Seven o'clock; and at that hour, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put successively the Question already proposed from the Chair and the Questions on such of the remaining Motions as may then be made, including the Questions on any Amendments thereto which he may have selected.

Private Members' Motions

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall vote on the three procedure motions at 7 o'clock. I propose to speak briefly on all three now. The House will recall that on 1 February we dealt with the third report of the Procedure Committee

on ten-minute Bills. The debate on that day also covered the second report of the Committee, dealing with private Members' time. We did not bring it to a conclusion, following a request by hon. Members, and the matter was held over to a subsequent occasion. That is the purpose of today's debate.
Since the previous debate I have reflected on the speeches made, and I remain convinced of the need and justification for the three motions. As this is, in effect, a continuation of the previous debate, I do not intend to repeat my speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the Leader of the House. I should have informed the House before he rose that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), to leave out paragraph (d). I selected the amendment on the previous occasion that the matter was debated. I have not selected the other amendments.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I had dealt with that amendment in my previous intervention.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I asked the Leader of the House to make sure that he addressed the issue raised by the amendment. The motion covers not only matters that went to the Procedure Committee but any attempt by any hon. Member ever to use private Members' time to make a substantive decision about any Standing Order.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me reiterate the central point of our position. I believe that the three motions, taken with the additional day for private Members' business in the Sessional Order to amend Standing Order No. 13 which I moved on 22 November, provide a fair and reasonable deal for the House as a whole and for Back Benchers. Indeed, they were so regarded by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and many other hon. Members in the previous debate.
If the way is to be cleared for private Members' business to be considered largely unobstructed—that is, through the motions on new writs and petitions, motions 4 and 3—an additional day having already been provided for that business, I do not think it unreasonable to expect hon. Members to operate within the parameters of the agreed procedures and within the time available within the system, and to preclude them from doing otherwise. That is the central purpose of the motion on private Members' motions.
Any hon. Member who introduces a private Members' Bill which is long, complex or controversial should be aware of the risks of failure arising from the inherent nature of the Bill and should not blame the system if the Bill fails to get through.
In the earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) emphasised what she called the will of the House. It has also been raised tonight. She suggested that if a private Member's motion were passed to give precedence or some other advantage to a private Member's Bill, so be it. That was the very question addressed by the Procedure Committee. I explained previously that if we allowed that to be the position, that would itself destroy the balance of the accepted convention for dealing with private Members' business.
It could nullify the effect of the ballot for private Members' Bills if a Member successful in obtaining a high


place in the ballot found his Bill being upstaged by a Bill lower down that had a stronger lobby behind it. I do not think that that prospect is made more acceptable by the amendment on the Order Paper in my hon. Friend's name. Although the intention might be to secure favourable treatment for a Bill, such a procedure could be used to hinder other Bills. That is one feature we would not want.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as he is anxious to be identified—I understand why—the procedure of the House has been used on previous occasions in a way which was never intended. The Procedure Committee addressed itself to that, at the invitation of Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that hard cases make bad law and that we should think carefully before changing procedures in response to one or two incidents.
We have thought about it carefully, and so has the Procedure Committee. When the procedures of the House have been used in a way that was never intended, it is reasonable to plug the gaps and to eliminate the weaknesses that are exposed by such unintended use. I add to that the hope expressed by you, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not go through this kind of thing again.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend made consistent reference to motions being used in a way that was not intended. May I refer him to the ruling of the Speaker in 1927 on which our privileges have been based ever since? That ruling specifically said that altering time and seeking extra time was not solely within the competence of the Government but was rightly also within the province of private Members. How is it an abuse if that was what the Speaker ruled?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The target of the report that we are debating was not the impact of decisions or wishes of the Government on anything but the potential impact of one set of private Members' rights on another set of private Members' rights. It is that balance which the report carefully seeks to maintain. In paragraph 5 the Committee said:
Our fundamental approach in tackling this problem has been to seek to preserve and strengthen the balance between, on the one hand, the rights of private Members to have their balloted Motions debated without disruption, and, on the other, the legitimate expectations of Members with Bills in the first six allotted places".
So it is not a matter between the Executive and private Members. It is an attempt to implement a recommendation made by private Members for private Members for the better management of the business of the House.
I believe that the three motions, with the others that were debated, make a sensible package. They have been debated in prime time already for about one and a half hours. We had a substantial debate on the substance earlier this afternoon. We have a further opportunity of debating the motions for the remainder of the hour. On that basis, we shall have debated them for more than enough time to bring the matter to a conclusion at 7 o'clock. I commend the motions to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I speak for the second time in support of the motions. Before I come to their merits, although I do not want to repeat at length

what I said on the previous occasion, I want to deal with the argument which has been put to us again today that there has been a great conspiracy on the part of the Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Between the two Front Benches.

Dr. Cunningham: I should remind my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of what I said in the previous debate. I consulted Back-Bench Members of the parliamentary Labour party in public at a meeting which was advertised on the Whip. My hon. Friend was probably doing something important, but he did not come to that meeting.

Mr. Skinner: I was probably in the Chamber——

Dr. Cunningham: He probably was.

Mr. Skinner: —doing the job for which I am paid.

Dr. Cunningham: There has been every opportunity on this side of the House for consultation and discussion, and there is to be a free vote. I shall list my hon. Friends who served on the Committee: the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is in his place, and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who was here earlier. They are not the kind of people to join any conspiracy with the Treasury Bench or, in many cases, with this Front Bench. I do not think there is a shred of evidence to sustain the conspiracy argument.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for whom I have a high personal regard—[Interruption.] I have a high personal regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover too, but I do not agree with him on this matter.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed cannot sustain his argument; there is no validity in it. He has not a shred of evidence to support his argument.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is serving on a Select Committee at this moment. He told me that if he had been able to take part in the debate he would have wanted to draw attention to the fact that in the Procedure Committee he moved and voted on an amendment that was a much better compromise than that which is being offered to us today.

Dr. Cunningham: We should have argued about the merits of the proposed changes. I do not suggest for a moment that all my hon. Friends agree with the view that I have expressed about the proposed changes. However, I believe that they disagree with those who say that in bringing the recommendations before the House in this way they have somehow been involved in a behind-the-scenes deal with the Government. That is not true. That is not true in my case, either.
We are trying to protect Back Benchers from the depredations of other Back Benchers. That is the force of the argument for change. Back-Bench Members' time is not being dramatically changed by the proposals, except in one instance. It is unacceptable that, with the shortest period of notice, a Back Bencher can move a motion in the Chamber to change our Standing Orders. The proper way to change Standing Orders is for the House to set up a Select Committee of Back Benchers to take evidence and


to come back to the House with recommendations. That is the orderly way to change our procedures, and that is the proposal. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not accept the argument that, willy-nilly, at short notice, Back Benchers should have the right to come into the Chamber, move a motion and turn the procedures of the House upside down.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, want to make it clear that a motion would have to be on the Order Paper before it could be moved. Hon. Members, therefore, would be notified. Furthermore, there would have to be a majority for the motion. Surely those are two enormous safeguards.

Dr. Cunningham: That is a statement of fact, so it has to be right. However, I do not accept that that is the best way to examine the procedures of the House. It would be better to appoint a Select Committee of Back Benchers to consider the matter thoroughly. Interested though I was in my hon. Friend's amusing speech earlier today, it was nevertheless an attempt to prevent the House from reaching a decision today. I am in favour of the House reaching a decision on these matters.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I apologise for the fact that, because of official business with a Select Committee, I was unable to be here for the earlier debate. I can attest to the consultation procedures to which my hon. Friend properly referred. However, does he not agree that he is now dealing with two distinct, albeit connected, issues? I agree with my hon. Friend and the Leader of the House about the first—the use of private Members' motions to change the Standing Orders relating to private Members' Bills. However, my hon. Friend has introduced another element: that the House can change any Standing Order with or without notice. I take his point that there is a connection in this instance, but are they not two separate issues that ought to be debated separately instead of together?

Dr. Cunningham: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not agree with it. That would be another means to cause delay. All hon. Members who are in the Chamber know what the issues are. The report has been before us for many months. We had an opportunity to debate it on an earlier occasion. There can be no confusion about what the House is being asked to decide. My hon. Friend may have made a pedantic point, but it is not a point of major substance, or one with which I can agree.
I intend to support the motion in the Lobby.

Sir Peter Emery: I spoke earlier only on the procedural motion. I wish to make three specific points. The Procedure Committee attempted to ensure fairness for those who are successful in the ballot for private Members' motions and for those who are successful in the ballot to introduce private Members' Bills. They have little enough time. If hon. Members were advocating more time, it would be a different matter. We should thank the Government for providing an additional day.
The Procedure Committee has tried to safeguard the rights of hon. Members who are successful in the ballots so that their motions can be properly debated. Neither writs nor petitions should curtail their time. The Procedure Committee has not limited the time in which hon.

Members who are successful in the ballots can discuss these matters; they can be discussed at other times. Writs could be discussed in Government time. I should have thought that that would be an advantage for BackBenchers; writs would not be dealt with in private Members' time. The Procedure Committee suggests that petitions should be dealt with at the end of the day instead of the beginning.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argued that an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) altered the package. That is not correct. The amendment would have provided additional time—it would not have altered the package—for private Members' Bills. The Government have met that point to some extent by providing an additional day.
Whenever there is a request for Standing Orders to be changed, the Procedure Committee is asked to examine the request and make recommendations. Hon. Members who are against the motion believe that they will lose their special rights, or privilege, to introduce Bills. They want to be granted special rights to introduce a motion, thus taking precedence over other hon. Members who have been successful in the ballot. That is unfair and should be stopped. It was seen by the House to be unfair. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke for three hours on one occasion to prevent a Bill from being debated. We want to save the hon. Member for Bolsover the trouble of having to speak for three hours to prevent queue jumping.
The Procedure Committee heard a great deal of evidence on the subject and has provided a complete package. The evidence is printed at the back of the Committee's report. The Procedure Committee wants to safeguard Back Benchers' rights. The rights of Opposition Front-Bench and Treasury Bench Members are unaffected; they have nothing to gain or lose by this. The fact that the Government have found so much time to debate the matter—twice in prime time—is excellent.

Mr. Cryer: Suspicious.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman says that it is suspicious. Is not that what hon. Members want? Do they not keep pressing the Government for more time? Is that not what Back Benchers keep asking the Leader of the House to do? The moment that it is done it is called suspicious. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. It has been done for the benefit of Back Benchers. We should thank the Government and not be bloody-minded about it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out paragraph (d).
I shall be very brief as other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall not repeat my arguments on the main issue although I remain of the view that it is hard to tell Back Benchers that they should never do what the Government do every day—seek more time for Bills. I wish to concentrate on my amendment to leave out paragraph (d).
The motion has a far wider effect than the Chairman of the Procedure Committee or the Leader of the House have admitted. It precludes private Members from ever using private Members' time to bring about a change in the Standing Orders. I am not sure whether the hon. Member


for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) followed that point. I agree with him that the most desirable way to change the Standing Orders, if there is a problem, is to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, get a report and act on that report. But what happens if the Government do not provide time for the report? My experience is that they choose to provide time for those reports which, for one reason or another, they wish to bring forward.
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) will be the first to realise the many occasions when I served on that Committee on which we could not get some of our proposals before the House. If, in those circumstances, he and other hon. Members decided that enough was enough—that one of us has won the ballot, so we shall bring forward the changes and not be fobbed off by the Government any longer because they do not like the changes—we would be unable to table a motion to give effect to the Procedure Committee's recommendations because it would not be receivable in the Table Office. All that we can do is table a take-note motion which does not have any effect. The Government are off the hook again because they do not have to proceed with the matter.

Sir Peter Emery: It would be quite possible for the Procedure Committee to move a motion asking for time, but any report of the Procedure Committee should be approved by the House and then acted upon by the Government. We could pass that quite easily.

Mr. Beith: Any motion to give effect to changes in the Standing Orders, which is what is required to change Standing Orders, would be precluded at the Table Office. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I nor anyone else could get past the Table Office clerks, who would be bound by the motion to say that amending or varying any Standing Order is prohibited by the motion. I do not understand why the Leader of the House included that prohibition in the motion. It widens it far beyond its original purpose.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will accept my amendment even if they do not agree that it is also legitimate for hon. Members to seek the approval of the House for further time for private Members' Bills. That is a separate issue. Why it has been wrapped up in this motion, I do not know, but the effect is to place a clear limitation on hon. Members. Perhaps the Leader of the House is not in a conspiracy; perhaps he is as innocent as he so often looks and does not realise that that is the effect of the motion. That is a possible explanation.

Mr. Spearing: Without taking any view on the timetable motion, suspicions or anything else, I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the Leader of the House included paragraph (d). I understand that there was a procedural motion without notice. Would not the whole matter be resolved at a subsequent stage, if it is not acceptable to the Leader of the House tonight, by stating that any procedural motion must have so many days' notice? The question of Back Benchers' rights would remain open and everyone would be protected by the notice required.

Mr. Beith: I agree with that observation and I am in favour of requirements of notice being laid on individual Members and the Government. Both should have to give notice of changes in Standing Orders.

Dr. Cunningham: I want to get the record straight. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that he understood why the Leader of the House and I had included that change. I make it absolutely clear that I had nothing to do with the drafting of the motions on the Order Paper. Of course, I studied them and agreed to support them, as I have made clear, but I was not involved in drafting them. I must say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it is not that I do not understand what he is saying; I simply do not agree with him.

Mr. Beith: I think that the hon. Gentleman should agree with me. I tell many of my constituents in many cases, "If only you had looked at the small print." At some time in the future, hon. Members will say, "If only we had looked at the small print because we are precluded from bringing about changes which the Procedure Committee has recommended and the Government do not like, or in some other way acting in a perfectly proper manner to serve the interests of our constituents and the House." For the moment hon. Members should forget whatever views they may have had on a controversial instance in the past, look at the merits of the argument and read the small print.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I shall be brief as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The motion is utterly disgraceful. It proposes to remove from Back Benchers the last shreds of their rights to influence the business of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has not addressed himself to the principal issue that I raised last time—the difference between obstructive activity and that which seeks the will of the House.
Only one hon. Member has to decide to move a by-election writ and talk for three hours. Some hon. Members can present petitions all morning but there is no way in which the House can give precedence or extra time to any Bill or have a Standing Order changed without the will of the House. The first motion means that an hon. Member cannot ask the House to decide whether we shall change a Standing Order or give a Bill extra time.
I have been very restrained about answering this allegation in the past, but in view of the fact that yet again reference has been made to queue jumping, I should like to point out to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that the Bill for which I was seeking time came up after the six Bills that were ahead of it in the ballot. I did not seek immediate consideration of all stages; I sought Second Reading only, so it stayed very firmly in its place in the queue and there was no queue jumping. Had there been queue jumping the queue could not have been jumped without the will of the House and that is crucial.
The motion says that Back Benchers may not seek the will of the House. My amendment, which you quite properly did not call, Mr. Speaker, tried to meet the case that was put last time that a Back Bencher could take up a great deal of time on the Floor of the House in discussing a Bill that did not have much support and then try to push


something through on a small vote. My amendment was trying to make certain that there was substantial support across the House before any such motion could be tabled and I am sorry that you did not call it.
It really is a question of protecting our last rights. If those rights go, there will be no other way than by lottery that an hon. Member can come to the House and ask for any change in Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was quite right to say that, if the Government of the day do not want to do something, the Procedure Committee, Select Committees or anyone else will not be able to ask individual hon. Members to use their place in the ballot to propose respectable recommendations. If we pass the motion, we shall be totally at the mercy of the Executive. That is why there is agreement between the two Front Benches. There will simply be nothing left. We have had those rights for years. I regret that tonight's debate is not better attended so that people can hear the arguments.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, you had a request under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate on an important matter that was urgent and specific. I do not know and I am not asking you why you turned down that application, but we could have been debating that issue had a different decision been made.
We would have been debating the social fund and the fact that according to the courts in some circumstances people can claim money that the Government have deprived them of in the past few years. Nearly all Opposition Members would have preferred to discuss the social fund, and those poor people who do not have two ha'pennies to rub together, instead of messing about with a motion which has come from the belly of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). He spawned it and he did not know what he was doing when he produced it.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has shown that the hon. Member for Honiton has gone a bridge too far—he is taking away powers without even knowing that he is doing it. The Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have not explained the answers to the charges that have been made on three separate occasions by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
It is shabby that we should be spending our time attempting to stop Members moving writs. Some might regard it as fantasy land, but imagine what would happen if the Government did not want to move a writ for the Mid-Staffordshire by-election. Suppose the Government thought that because of public attitudes to the poll tax, high interest and mortgage rates and so on, they would not, despite their 150 majority over Labour, go ahead with the Mid-Staffordshire writ. Indeed, suppose the Government went against an earlier decision and moved an amendment stating that the by-election must be held within, say, three months.
Suppose that the initiative of an Opposition Member was required to tell the people of Mid-Staffordshire, "You will have the chance of a by-election." The Government might vote that down, but at least the voters of Mid-Staffordshire would have been alerted to the fact that the Labour party, through one of its Back Benchers, was

prepared to try to secure a by-election. That type of scenario might be remote, but the opportunity that now exists for a Back Bencher to take the initiative is being taken from us.

Sir Peter Emery: In private Members' time.

Mr. Skinner: Private Members raise issues that the Government dare not touch. There have been many occasions when private Members have brought forward on a Friday issues that the Government would not raise. Indeed, the hon. Member for Honiton brought forward a private Member's Bill recently and managed to obtain a Second Reading.

Dr. Cunningham: The effect of what is before the House would not prevent any Opposition Member from moving a writ for a by-election. It would simply prevent it happening in private Members' time. We would not be giving up the right to move a writ for a by-election if we decided to move a writ. A danger of moving a writ for a by-election against the Government's desire is that, if it is voted down, there cannot be a by-election in that Session of Parliament.

Mr. Skinner: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is telling me and I do not need to be educated on the subject. I fear, however, that he is wrong. Such matters on a Friday come up as first business. From Monday to Thursday they come up at the commencement of the sitting, before Question Time, and, as Government business, they are held over. From then on the Government are in control. We had an example of that once this Session.
That is why I say that a different set of circumstances applies on Fridays. Why does my hon. Friend think that the proposed prohibitions and bans have arisen? On Friday the Government do not always have 120 Members present. They do not want to be burdened every Friday with having to contend with a Back-Bench adventure. On Fridays, the Government are not always in control of the activities of Back Benchers.
The Government do not want to be bothered every Friday with such matters. Ministers and others on the Government Benches want to be elsewhere. They do not want to have to keep sufficient supporters here to control the House. The hon. Member for Honiton will recall that when, on a recent Friday, he secured a Second Reading for his Bill, only 53 Members voted for the closure motion. That is how the Government like it. They love it because it enables Ministers to trot around the country on photo opportunities, on fact-finding tours and doing whatever else they want to do.
Let us deal with the nitty-gritty of the matter. It is nonsense to say that the Government are worried about the business of Back Benchers on Fridays. It is being suggested that the Government are telling us, "We are doing this only because we are trying to look after you on Fridays." Who believes that? After all, the Leader of the House has spent most of his time swanning around the world, at the United Nations and elsewhere, meeting Foreign Ministers and others. Also, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has two houses to visit on Fridays.
Is it really suggested that he is anxious to accommodate Opposition Back Benchers in what they wish to achieve on Fridays? Of course he is not. In the television age he wants to tell the moguls who run the networks, "Here is the business for Friday. We can tell you spot on what will


happen next Friday." Every day on programmes about Parliament we read the details of what business will take place here.
From Monday to Thursday the Government can be sure of being right about that—because they are in control of the business, knowing that certain items will be raised, finishing with the Adjournment—but they are never too sure of what will happen on Fridays. Indeed, five or six Bills might be down for discussion on a Friday. Had the hon. Member for Honiton not listened to the advice of the Tory Whip, my hon. Friends and I might have slipped two more Bills through. A Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) nearly got through. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Honiton had his elbow jerked by the Government Whip on duty.

Sir Peter Emery: Keep talking.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman tells me to keep talking. He knows as well as anyone what happens on a Friday. On that day there is always an opportunity for Back Benchers to get something through. Ministers may not be in evidence. So let us put an end to the suggestion that the Leader of the House is worried about Back Benchers and is anxious to make life smooth for us on Fridays.
If that were the case, we would not have occasional Government statements made on Fridays. I am not against the Government making statements on a Friday, when there are not many Members present. In those circumstances I may be called by Mr. Speaker to put a question. That happened last Friday when we discussed Hong Kong.
But it is a bit cheeky for the Government, who may wish to make statements on a Friday for their own benefit, thereby disrupting private Members' time, to say that they are anxious to protect Fridays for Back Benchers. It has been suggested that Government statements have been made deliberately to reduce the time that would otherwise be available on a Friday for a private Member's measure that the Government do not like.
If the Chairman of the Procedure Committee wanted to do something good for Back Benchers, he could have advised the Leader of the House to allocate 10 more Fridays for private Members. The Government occupy the time on some Fridays. Why did not the hon. Member for Honiton have the guts to tell his right hon. and learned Friend that his Committee recommends that Back Benchers should have more time for Adjournments, motions and private Members' Bills? There might not be any queue jumping if more days were allocated for private Members' Bills. That would have been far preferable to the paltry little concession that is being made.

Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the kindness of reading the report.

Mr. Skinner: I have read it.

Sir Peter Emery: In that case, the hon. Gentleman must have overlooked, which is often the case with the hon. Gentleman, the recommendation that extra time should be given twice a week to Back Benchers for Adjournment debates. He should not make the sort of allegations that he is making without knowing the facts, which is often the case with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: I said that the concession was paltry. Indeed, the Leader of the House even forgot that it was in the report. If the hon. Member for Honiton were sensible, he would have said that, in anticipation of the proposals being passed by the House, 10 more Fridays should be provided for private Members' Bills and motions.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) will be aware that, if it is the wish of the House that a Member shall not jump the queue, that is the end of the matter. If a Back Bencher wishes to move a writ, he or she can do that. Although there may have been a majority on Second Reading for the Bill that she introduced, the fact remains that the will of the House on that occasion—and in 1985 when Enoch Powell moved a Bill on the same issue—was to the effect that so-called queue jumping should not occur.

Miss Widdecombe: I cannot quite equate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with the will of the House. If he wished to move a by-election writ, he did not have to seek the will of the House; he could go ahead and do it. But I could not get extra time for my Bill unless the House agreed to my having more time. That is the difference between the two.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Lady could not have had her ear close enough to the ground. I assure her that, in the days prior to that Friday, scores of her hon. Friends, some of whom were prepared to support her Bill on Second Reading, told me, "I hope to goodness that you manage to stop it on Friday, Dennis." Certainly Government Members did not want to spend the weekend here; they had had enough having to stay for the Friday—[Interruption.] There were a greater number of Members supporting me on the two Fridays when the hon. Lady presented her Bill than I had experienced in 20 years.
I shall tell the Leader of the House what he should do. Why not take the motions one at a time? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard the request of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and if he accepts the amendment, he will do the House and himself a favour. By the time the Prime Minister has finished with the Leader of the House, he could well be a Back Bencher, and he might want to do some of these things on a Friday. He will not always have two houses to sweep and clean with Lady Quango on Friday when we are battling here.
If the Procedure Committee wants to do something decent, I shall give it some ideas. Why not take up the matter of starting our proceedings at 9 am? Why not take up the question of having full-time Members of Parliament? Why not consider ensuring that every Member has one job as a Member of Parliament, and one job only? Why not take up the idea of clocking on, like millions of our constituents have to do? Why not do all those things? A report on those issues would be controversial, and this place would be full to debate it.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about Back Benchers' rights, why did he not take up the matter of the Labour Front Bench using the time for ten-minute Bills, as happened the other day?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter should be discussed on another occasion. It does not concern the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Skinner: I must answer that question, Mr. Speaker. One of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench passed the Bill to another Front Bencher. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has not been a Member long. He is a bit wet behind the ears and he probably did not realise that it had been passed by one Front Bencher to another.
Many improvements could be made for Back Benchers. We are in the so-called television age. If the Chairman of the Procedure Committee wants to do something useful, such as consider those matters that I have suggested—perhaps he and other hon. Members could present a multitude of other issues—he might get some support from those of us who want to take some power from the Executive and hand it to Back Benchers. Over the past 20 years during which I have been a Member, there have been six occasions—many of which have been alluded to—when powers have been taken from Back Benchers, and they have never been restored. It is time that we took some of those powers back.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am sure that we all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We have discovered what he does in the rare moments when he is not in the Chamber—he has obviously started writing his autobiography. Many of us will look forward to reading it.
There are many arguments about whether there should be more or less time for private Members' business. In a previous incarnation, I sometimes wished that there were no time for that business. Nothing gives a Government Chief Whip more nightmares than the prospect of private Members' business on Friday. It is an art of its own in terms of parliamentary procedure. Over the years, I probably lost more nights' sleep over private business than over everything else put together.
We should not give more time to private Members' business. If the Chairman of the Procedure Committee said that more time should be allocated, I would strongly oppose that view. However, we must strenuously protect the time already given. I have grieved when the time granted has been abused by hon. Members using a number of devices. In the past year or so—I cannot remember the exact time—I unsuspectingly applied to present a petition to the House on a Friday morning. To my horror, I found that there were many other petitions, which were clearly to be presented to block private Members' business. Consequently, I said to the House that I did not intend to present my petition, because I did not think that my constituents would wish to have their petition mixed up in a blocking procedure.
The motions are thoroughly worthy in that their aim is not to remove Members' rights to move writs or present petitions, but solely to protect private Members' time. I hope that the House will support that worthy and laudable aim.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: We have been debating a number of different issues more or less simultaneously which may be confusing to those hearing or watching these proceedings. The first part of the debate on these matters was spent deciding how long we should

debate them and whether an amendment should be made. In that debate, matters were rehearsed relating to the substance of the motions on the Order Paper.
In the past three quarters of an hour, we have discussed one motion which relates to a well-founded attempt by the Leader of the House, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham), to stop a gap which was ingeniously discovered by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and her hon. Friends in pursuit of a controversial private Member's Bill. A gap in the procedures was found by which to extend, through private Members' motions, the opportunity for debate on private Members' Bills, which were otherwise limited in time. None of us would deny the hon. Lady's right to attempt that.
The main question is whether, in the balance of the private Members' time available, that facility should be used and whether it is desirable. Although I agree that the hon. Member for Maidstone had the right to make that attempt, the balance of private Members' time should be retained as it is, and that path should be closed. I disagree in some measure with the motion because of the method used to close it. I am concerned with paragraph (d). I fully understand why it was inserted.
It would seem necessary and common sense to deal with the situation precipitated by the hon. Member for Maidstone. I understand that the motion was tabled without much notice. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that, perhaps inadvertently, the inclusion of paragraph (d) precludes any Member from tabling a motion to amend Standing Orders at any time, however much notice is given—whether it has been promoted by the Procedure Committee or otherwise. That encroachment on private Members' rights may need to be considered again.
I ask the Leader of the House, who takes these matters seriously and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland to consider the motion again, if it is passed, so that Members' rights are maintained without allowing the route taken by the hon. Member for Maidstone to be followed. I hope that, even if the Leader of the House cannot accept an amendment—I hope that he will—the motion will be ameliorated.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The motions do not touch on the subjects on which the hon. Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner) spoke—the power a Back Benchers and the right of the legislature to curb the Executive. In the two minutes that are left I simply wish to say that I hope that the House will do something to redress the balance between the power of the legislature and the power of the Executive.
The House should be a curb on the Executive which scrutinises properly. Instead we have become a tool of the Executive. That has distorted the balance of power in this country. It is time for another Dunning's motion that the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 218.

Division No. 90]
[7 pm


AYES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony






Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Livingstone, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Livsey, Richard


Bradley, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Jim
Madden, Max


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marion, Mrs Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marek, Dr John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Marlow, Tony


Clay, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martlew, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Day, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Dover, Den
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Eadie, Alexander
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Nellist, Dave


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Patchett, Terry


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fearn, Ronald
Pike, Peter L.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Primarolo, Dawn


Flannery, Martin
Shersby, Michael


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Skinner, Dennis


Gill, Christopher
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gordon, Mildred
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Summerson, Hugo


Gregory, Conal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Waller, Gary


Heffer, Eric S.
Watts, John


Hinchliffe, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hood, Jimmy
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howells, Geraint
Widdecombe, Ann


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jessel, Toby
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Johnston, Sir Russell



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kilfedder, James
Mr. Alan Beith and Mr. Nigel Spearing.


Knowles, Michael



Lamond, James





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Buckley, George J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Allen, Graham
Burt, Alistair


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Chris


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Critchley, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cummings, John


Beckett, Margaret
Cunningham, Dr John


Benyon, W.
Curry, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dixon, Don


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Eggar, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fallon, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony





Fishburn, John Dudley
Morrison, Sir Charles


Flynn, Paul
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forth, Eric
Mudd, David


Foster, Derek
Needham, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Nelson, Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Fry, Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fyfe, Maria
Nicholls, Patrick


Galloway, George
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gardiner, George
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Golding, Mrs Llin
Page, Richard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Paice, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patnick, Irvine


Grist, Ian
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Portillo, Michael


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Price, Sir David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Richardson, Jo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunter, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Irving, Sir Charles
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jack, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Speed, Keith


Lang, Ian
Speller, Tony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Thurnham, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, David
Turner, Dennis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Malins, Humfrey
Viggers, Peter


Mans, Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maples, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Marland, Paul
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wells, Bowen


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wheeler, Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Michael, Alun
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Miller, Sir Hal
Yeo, Tim


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Mitchell, Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Morley, Elliot
Mr. John D. Taylor


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Mr. Sidney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded,pursuant to the Order this day, to put successively the Question already proposed and the Question on such of the remaining motions as might then be made.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 73.

Division No. 91]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Favell, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Arbuthnot, James
Foster, Derek


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Franks, Cecil


Ashby, David
Freeman, Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
French, Douglas


Atkins, Robert
Fry, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fyfe, Maria


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gardiner, George


Baldry, Tony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Batiste, Spencer
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beckett, Margaret
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, W.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bermingham, Gerald
Grist, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Blunkett, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boswell, Tim
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Harris, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowis, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hunter, Andrew


Buck, Sir Antony
Irvine, Michael


Buckley, George J.
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butler, Chris
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Butterfill, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Key, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King. Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Churchill, Mr
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cox, Tom
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cummings, John
Lightbown, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Lilley, Peter


Curry, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davis, David (Boothferry)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dixon, Don
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McWilliam, John


Dunn, Bob
Matins, Humfrey


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mans, Keith


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maples, John


Durant, Tony
Marek, Dr John


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Eadie, Alexander
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Emery, Sir Peter
Maxton, John


Fallon, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick





Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sackville, Hon Tom


Michael, Alun
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Miller, Sir Hal
Shaw, David (Dover)


Mills, Iain
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morrison, Sir Charles
Sims, Roger


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Smith, Tim (Beaconslield)


Mudd, David
Speller, Tony


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Trippier, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Portillo, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Wheeler, Sir John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rhodes James, Robert
Winnick, David


Richardson, Jo
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Ryder, Richard





NOES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knowles, Michael


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livingstone, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Livsey, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lord, Michael


Bradley, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas


Brazier, Julian
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Marlow, Tony


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cryer, Bob
Mitchell, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Devlin, Tim
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dover, Den
Nellist, Dave


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Pike, Peter L.


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Primarolo, Dawn


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Soley, Clive


Galloway, George
Speed, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Gordon, Mildred
Summerson, Hugo


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gregory, Conal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Watts, John


Hawkins, Christopher
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hood, Jimmy
Widdecombe, Ann


Howells, Geraint
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jessel, Toby



Johnston, Sir Russell
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Gary Waller.


Kilfedder, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That—

Private Members' Motions ( Business of the House)

Unless the House otherwise orders, Private Members' notices of motions shall not be received for any day other than an early day, if—

(a) with respect to any private Members' bill, they would have an effect similar to that of motions of which notice may be given under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business);
(b) they would have the effect of varying the practice of the House or the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) or Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) so far as concerns the precedence, arrangement or timing of business;
(c) they would have the effect of allocating time to any proceedings;
(d) they would have the effect of amending or varying any Standing Order; or
(e) they would have the effect, whether by amendment or by the making of a new Order, of dispensing with or varying the effect of, this Order.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House has already suggested that, with this, we may discuss the other two procedure motions:
That Standing Order No. 133 (No debate on presentation of Petition) be repealed and the following Standing Order be made—

Time and manner of presenting petitions

(1)—Every petition presented under Standing Order No. 132 (Presentation of petitions) not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House, and which according to the rules or usual practice of this House can be received, shall be brought to the Table—

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, after a Member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion, or after a Minister of the Crown shall have signified his intention to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) 'That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended', and
(b) on Fridays, at the commencement of public business; provided that petitions remaining to be presented at Ten o'clock on a Friday on which private Members' bills or Motions have precedence under Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall stand over and may be brought to the Table after a member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion.

(2) Proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this Order shall not be interrupted at Ten o'clock or at half past Two o'clock respectively.

(3) Mr. Speaker shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition; but it may be read by the Clerk if required.

That if a Motion to the effect that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member is proposed to be made or is made after prayers on any day on which private Members' bills or notices of motion have precedence, and is opposed, proceedings thereon shall lapse.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Private Members Motions (Business of the House)

Unless the House otherwise orders, Private Members' notices of motions shall not be received for any day other than an early day, if—

(a) with respect to any private Member's bill, they would have an effect similar to that of motions of which notice may be given under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business);
(b) they would have the effect of varying the practice of the House or the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) or Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) so far as concerns the precedence, arrangement or timing of business;
(c) they would have the effect of allocating time to any proceedings;
(d) they would have the effect of amending or varying any Standing Order; or
(e) they would have the effect, whether by amendment or by the making of a new Order, of dispensing with or varying the effect of, this Order.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Standing Order No. 133 (No debate on presentation of Petition) be repealed and the following Standing Order be made—

Time and manner of presenting petitions

(1)—Every petition presented under Standing Order No. 132 (Presentation of petitions) not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House, and which according to the rules or usual practice of this House can be received, shall be brought to the Table—

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, after a Member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion, or after a Minister of the Crown shall have signified his intention to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) 'That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended', and
(b) on Fridays, at the commencement of public business; provided that petitions remaining to be presented at Ten o'clock on a Friday on which private Members' bills or Motions have precedence under Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall stand over and may be brought to the Table after a member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion.

(2) Proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this Order shall not be interrupted at Ten o'clock or at half past Two o'clock respectively.

(3) Mr. Speaker shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition; but it may be read by the Clerk if required.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 35.

Division No. 92]
[7.24 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Amess, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Anderson, Donald
Beckett, Margaret


Arbuthnot, James
Beith, A. J.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Benyon, W.


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Blunkett, David


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boswell, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia





Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Irvine, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jack, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jessel, Toby


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Buck, Sir Antony
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Burns, Simon
Kennedy, Charles


Butler, Chris
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Knowles, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lang, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Lawrence, Ivan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Chope, Christopher
Lightbown, David


Churchill, Mr
Lilley, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Livsey, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Couchman, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Lord, Michael


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Curry, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Day, Stephen
Maclean, David


Devlin, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Dixon, Don
Mans, Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Maples, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marek, Dr John


Dover, Den
Marlow, Tony


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunn, Bob
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Durant, Tony
Maxton, John


Dykes, Hugh
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eggar, Tim
Miller, Sir Hal


Emery, Sir Peter
Mills, Iain


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Favell, Tony
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Morrison, Sir Charles


Flynn, Paul
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forth, Eric
Needham, Richard


Foster, Derek
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fyfe, Maria
Oppenheim, Phillip


Galloway, George
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


George, Bruce
Patnick, Irvine


Gill, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Portillo, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Powell, William (Corby)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Grist, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rogers, Allan


Harris, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hawkins, Christopher
Ryder, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)






Spearing, Nigel
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Speed, Keith
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wheeler, Sir John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Winnick, David


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr Ian





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Kilfedder, James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Livingstone, Ken


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clay, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter L.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Primarolo, Dawn


Dalyell, Tarn
Richardson, Jo


Eadie, Alexander
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Soley, Clive


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Flannery, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Gordon, Mildred



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Noes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Question accordingly agreed to.

NEW WRITS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That if a Motion to the effect that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member is proposed to be made or is made after prayers on any day on which private Members' bills or notices of motion have precedence, and is opposed, proceedings thereon shall lapse.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 40.

Division No. 93]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Allen, Graham
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, Michael (Brlgg &amp; Cl't's)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baldry, Tony
Buck, Sir Antony


Batiste, Spencer
Buckley, George J.


Battle, John
Burns, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burl, Alistair


Beckett, Margaret
Butler, Chris


Beith, A. J.
Butterfill, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benyon, W.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carrington, Matthew





Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lord, Michael


Chope, Christopher
McAvoy, Thomas


Churchill, Mr
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Couchman, James
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Cox, Tom
Maclean, David


Cummings, John
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Malins, Humfrey


Curry, David
Maples, John


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marlow, Tony


Day, Stephen
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Devlin, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dixon, Don
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dorrell, Stephen
Maxton, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Sir Hal


Dunn, Bob
Mills, Iain


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Eastham, Ken
Morrison, Sir Charles


Eggar, Tim
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fallon, Michael
Needham, Richard


Favell, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Flynn, Paul
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forth, Eric
Paice, James


Foster, Derek
Patnick, Irvine


Franks, Cecil
Pawsey, James


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fry, Peter
Portillo, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Powell, William (Corby)


George, Bruce
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gill, Christopher
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ryder, Richard


Grist, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Ground, Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hanley, Jeremy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Harris, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hawkins, Christopher
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Spearing, Nigel


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Speed, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Speller, Tony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steen, Anthony


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stern, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stevens, Lewis


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jack, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Sumberg, David


Johnston, Sir Russell
Summerson, Hugo


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kennedy, Charles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Key, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Trippier, David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lang, Ian
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lawrence, Ivan
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Waller, Gary


Lightbown, David
Ward, John


Lilley, Peter
Watts, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)






Wheeler, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Kilfedder, James


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Knowles, Michael


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Livingstone, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Meale, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alexander
Primarolo, Dawn


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Richardson, Jo


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rogers, Allan


Flannery, Martin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Fyfe, Maria
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Galloway, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gordon, Mildred
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Heffer, Eric S.



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Howells, Geraint

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Government Trading Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 2

MAINTENANCE OF STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CIVIL SERVANT'S

'All Civil Servants working within an area of work within a department where a Government Trading Fund is in operation shall be subject to the same general conditions of appointment, service and promotion as exist in the Civil Service generally. Where it is deemed to be necessary to vary those conditions a ballot must first be held of all staff affected and the result of the ballot must show a majority of votes cast for the changes contemplated.'.—[Dr. Mureki]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Opposition tabled the new clause because there is some anxiety about the conditions of service, appointment and promotion in the Civil Service. The service is likely to undergo quite a change in organisation, management and accountability to Parliament, and the new clause seeks to ensure that the same general conditions of appointment, service and promotion as exist in the Civil Service generally will obtain in any agency in which a Government trading fund is, or will be, in operation.
When those conditions are varied, we seek to establish a necessary condition before such variation. It is that a ballot must first be held among affected staff, and its result must show a majority of votes cast in favour of the contemplated changes.
Governments should be able to do certain things; certain changes should not be subject to negotiation with Civil Service unions or employees. For instance, a party might give a clear manifesto commitment to setting up a Ministry of Justice. If it won the general election on that manifesto, civil servants could be separated from, say, the Home Office and sent to work in the new Ministry. Any Government must have a right to do that.
It is difficult for the Opposition to draft new clauses, because they lack the expertise of parliamentary draftsmen. It could be said that there are some imperfections in the new clause, but the spirit of it is clear. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on some of the questions asked by the Opposition.
Other conditions such as local pay, bonus schemes and promotion procedures could be varied. There is a clear case for making changes only after consultation with the staff, and some should be made only after the agreement of the staff. I am not suggesting that that must be the case, but if, for example, a Government proposed that the number of days of annual leave should be reduced for no good reason, the staff would have to agree to that and receive extra pay or other benefits. If the country becomes wealthier, a Government may never need to do such a thing. Staff should be consulted on a large range of matters and, of course, they should be consulted through the


recognised channels, and that means through the recognised Civil Service trade unions. I shall say no more about that because it is only by way of explanation.
The meat of the new clause is in the first part. Promotion procedures, terms and general conditions of appointment that exist in the service now should exist in agencies. In future, better conditions could obtain in agencies, but we certainly do not want to see worse conditions.
There are persistent rumours about moves away from the traditional trade union negotiating machinery. Those rumours have not been substantiated. The framework agreement for the proposed Employment Services Agency does not mention any recognised procedures of Civil Service unions. That worries the Opposition. Civil servants who have an interest in these matters and certainly some people in Civil Service trade unions and people who hold office in those unions have the feeling that there will be changes. They are not spoken about at present, but there is a feeling that perhaps the traditional trade union negotiating machinery will not continue if the Conservatives win the next general election and are in power in the 1990s. Coupled with that, there is a feeling that there is in progress a gradual derecognition of trade unions.
Before going into those matters in some detail, I shall give some good news about Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The staff there are currently negotiating a new pay grading package and I understand from talking to civil servants that the negotiations are going well. I commend HMSO on its approach. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether such negotiations are envisaged for any other agency with a Government trading fund. If it is, many people will be much happier and will sleep much better tonight.
HMSO was initially set a financial objective of a return of 5 per cent. on net assets in the form of a current cost operating surplus. The framework document said that progressively more demanding financial objectives would be laid down by the Treasury. That has proved to be the case and the return of 5 per cent. has been increased to 8 per cent. Opposition Members are familiar with that process because it is similar to the one applied to health authorities which have to find efficiency savings every year, those savings being added on by the Department of Health as real increases in money available to the National Health Service. Only so much can be squeezed out of an orange or out of HMSO. It clearly can effect savings by producing Acts of Parliament with smaller print. No doubt that will be one of the options considered by the chief executive. It may go outside and perhaps print Jeffrey Archer's books so that it can make a profit to enable it to carry on with the standards of service that we have been used to. If it tried to get the contract for printing the Prime Minister's memoirs, that would be a retrograde step.
HMSO provides a quick and efficient service and prints on reasonable paper in a reasonable format because that is necessary for the public. I do not argue that no financial considerations should be applied, but one can push such considerations until they have a negative effect upon the well-being of the country. Similarly, the Central Office of Information is to have trading fund status if the Bill becomes an Act. We are worried about the exact conditions and procedures for the COI when it operates a trading fund. The cheapest way to disseminate public information is not to disseminate it at all. Questions will be

asked and certainly the chief executive of the COI will ask whether it is worth publishing so much information. He will ask whether it will cost too much. The price of paper might rise. Will that mean staff cuts because at least some information must be published on paper?
There are other problems. The COI provides information for other Governments and shows visiting Ministers around the country and provides briefings for them. Hon. Members take part in that valuable exercise. Does that mean that, if the COI is short of money in February or March and has to make a 5 or 8 per cent. return on assets employed, it will think that perhaps if it charges too much the Department sponsoring the visit—the Treasury or the Department of the Environment—might not accept its offer? It might think, "We will not show the visiting Minister Cardiff or Swansea, but we shall make him put up with visiting Coulsdon or Surbiton." I do not know the answer to those questions, but they must be addressed. There are reservations about the operation of trading funds and clarity is necessary.
There are other management problems. Companies house in Cardiff had a strike for about one day last year after an employee was suspended for five weeks. The dispute was eventually settled, but it should not have occurred in the first place. My understanding, such as it is from reading about the matter in the papers and talking to some of the civil servants who were involved, is that it was a problem not of new prodecures but possibly of macho management and the breaching of existing procedures.
If a civil servant or other employee does something wrong that merits suspension, surely the proper procedure is for that employee to be asked for an explanation and to be accompanied by a representative when the explanation is considered. After that, management has the right to take action and, if it thinks fit, to suspend the employee. I understand that in the case that I have mentioned that was not done and that there was a hasty recourse to suspension. The staff felt that the existing well-tried and constituted procedures were not being used and, as a result, I regret that over-hasty industrial action occurred. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the Government have to make sure that only the best management practices are used and the best managers employed to be chief executives of agencies. We do not want any macho men.
I have some specific questions for the Minister, and they are topical because they relate to the Employment Services Agency that will be created on 1 April. Is it intended that the agency will have a trading fund? I suspect that it will, and that raises questions about how the agency will operate. There is much concern about that. If it has a trading fund, how will it operate so that it commands the respect of the Civil Service and of those people who are seeking jobs through the various organisations that will depend on the agency?
8 pm
Secondly, the first draft of the employment services framework agreement was received by the Civil Service trade unions on 16 February. I am told that management will want all discussions and consultations—the whole package—wrapped up and ready to be implemented by 16 March.
I know that the Financial Secretary gave a fair commitment in Committee that there would be meaningful negotiations at departmental level with management and the recognised Civil Service unions. However, a month is


too short, because there is no time for the unions to circulate papers for discussion. Perhaps all this was in the pipeline, well before we had the debate on the Bill. Perhaps a slot in the timetable for all the various processes had already been made and management were reticent to extend that timetable. I do not know whether that is right, and I do not know whether trade unions are able to have meaningful discussions in a month. I hope that they will try and, equally, I hope that the Civil Service management will pay attention to what the Financial Secretary has said and will co-operate.
I hope that there will be no problems as a result of the timetable, and that there will be no complaints from the trade unions that they have been unduly stampeded and that they have been unable to consult properly about the framework agreement. Can the Financial Secretary assure me that adequate time will be given for those discussions?
Thirdly, there is no reference in the framework document to existing trade unions, or to existing negotiating structures. That is somewhat upsetting, and it gives concern to Opposition Members. The previous framework documents had references to existing Civil Service unions and negotiation structures. I do not know why the proposed framework document does not have such references. I should have thought that it would be sensible to continue to have them. Is there any reason for this? If it is an oversight, it ought to be put right, because it would help squash the rumours that there is a move away from the traditional negotiating structure, which is well tried and tested and has worked very well in the Civil Service. It would also squash rumours that perhaps there is a move to derecognise Civil Service trade unions. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Fourthly, if the Minister says, "Don't worry," and that the management of the Civil Service will consider the problems after the agency is set up on 1 April, my supplementary question is: if there is no reference to existing trade unions or negotiating structures in the present framework agreement, how will problems be patched up after April if the agreement is changed in the meantime?
It is important that there is some reference to those structures and I hope—perhaps as a result of discussions with Civil Service trade unions—that we can get this agreement right. I do not believe that previous framework agreements have been broadly right. I am not objecting to their content and coverage, but the new agreement seems to be a slight departure. For example, the same time has not been taken over discussions—some of the previous agreements took about a year. I know that we have had about three previous framework documents, so perhaps this one should be a little quicker. However, there has been a departure from the previous agreements, and hon. Members are worried about the change.
At present staff in agencies have remained civil servants, employed by the appropriate Department, and they are broadly subject to the existing terms and conditions that civil servants are subject to elsewhere. There are some changes. There are delegated personnel management functions, such as those at Companies house, Cardiff. There are performance bonus schemes on the horizon as well as salary grading structures and variations on those.
Another problem is that the management at Companies house, Cardiff sought to exclude the employees from a bonus scheme if they had more than 24 days sick leave.

Women tend to take more sick leave than men, for various reasons. Clearly if one applies that 24-day policy it will be unfair and will discriminate against women. I suspect that we need to think about the type of management at Companies house, Cardiff, at the moment. I hope that they are learning, because we do not want that sort of upset to be continually reported in the newspapers, as has been the case with the problems at Companies house.
Certain principles need to be adhered to and they have been clearly put down by the Council of Civil Service Unions. I have here a document from the CPSA which lists seven points, saying that staff in agencies should
(a) remain civil servants"—
I do not think that there is any dispute between Members on the Front Benches about that, unless the agencies are eventually privatised, and I add that as a caveat—
(b) remain available for transfer to other parts of the Civil Service;"—
I must confess that the Financial Secretary, in Committee, gave a useful assurance on that matter—
(c) remain covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme;
(d) continue to enjoy the best possible promotion prospects by the continued limiting of direct recruitment;
(e) remain subject to pay rates determined by National pay arrangements and agreements;
(f) retain the protection of National rules governing recruitment, probation and dismissal procedures;
(g) continue to be covered by National terms and Conditions of Service.
I do not think that any hon. Member wants to see people on low pay in the north of England simply because there is higher unemployment there. I do not think that any hon. Member wants to see difficulties for civil servants in certain agencies because the management feel that they can employ staff on lower pay or lower conditions of service than management in other agencies.
We have a national Civil Service. We should be proud of it, and we should pay for it. I hope that the Minister accepts that that is an entirely reasonable demand, and that he can see his way, if not to accept the new clause, to give an assurance that the Government accept the intent of what we seek to achieve.

Mr. Bill Michie: The debate on new clause 2 is slightly different from the discussion in Committee not so long ago. However, I think that it is worth reiterating the fears and worries of Opposition Members about what will happen to the professional conditions of service and the value of the Civil Service. We can be given assurances that everything will be all right, but I and my hon. Friends believe that we need those assurances in writing. We hope that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government will honour the assurances and pledges that they have given in the House tonight.
We are discussing conditions of service, which are valuable to people in all walks of life, no matter what their profession, training or job. It is important that we ensure that we do not leave any uncertainties about what the future holds for the staff concerned. It is essential for professional civil servants to have the opportunity to enhance their careers and conditions of employment by being able to transfer to another division, which, as has already been pointed out, may be impossible if they are working in smaller units.
When staff are placed in separate units and individual funding is introduced, there is a danger of isolation and a


"divide and rule" mentality. People who are now working in a large professional group in which the structures and financing are generally understood may find that, once they are working in small, isolated units, they are not only vulnerable for reasons of costing and funding, but isolated from colleagues in similar professions all over the country. Such financial pressures could worsen the conditions of staff gradually, group by group.
I have worked for large corporations—including the British Steel Corporation, before it showed me the door—and remember similar financial arrangements. Staff were organised into groups with their own operating plans, which they had to abide by in order to survive. I was working in research. My colleagues and I found ourselves in a financial straitjacket which, eventually, made us less efficient and less professional; as a result, the confidence and morale of the whole department became lower and lower. The agencies and funding organisations for which the Bill provides must not be isolated and forced to make decisions that will be detrimental not only to staff conditions but, eventually, to the entire service.
Many of us criticise some of the actions of the Civil Service, but it is still seen throughout the world as perhaps the most professional service anywhere. That did not happen by accident; it is the result of years of experience. Governments of all persuasions have used and appreciated the service in the past, and, we hope, will be able to do the same in future. I do not see the point of changing the system, but the Government are plainly determined to do so. All that we can do is to ensure that professionalism, efficiency and, of course, the work force are protected.
New clause 2 would ensure that that protection was provided through some form of national agreement. The Government do not have a very good record on trade union relations, and I hope that their aim is not to break down the organisations and then pick them up one by one, thereby lowering not only wages but professional standards.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I sympathise with the objectives of the new clause. It is designed to reassure civil servants who are involved in new and, in some respects, experimental developments in Departments in which many have worked for years, and to ensure that major changes are made only in consultation with them.
It is inevitable that the trading fund approach will—as it should—invite greater inventiveness by both management and staff in regard to how jobs can be done most effectively. In some circumstances, that is bound to mean larger rewards being ofered to attract staff to difficult jobs, or to give more recognition to effective performance than traditional Civil Service systems have tended to allow.
Anyone who doubts the need for such action should consider the experience of the tax inspectorate, which—as has been revealed in successive tranches of evidence to Committees of the House—has found it difficult to retain staff in the present competitive environment. Although the tax inspectorate is not a "next steps" agency, its experience demonstrates the difficulty of holding qualified staff with marketable skills when plenty of other employers are prepared to pay much more for those skills.
8.15 pm
I was surprised and concerned to find that Civil Service management had been so hamstrung in the past: a private operator has to act as a matter of urgency to avoid losing

trained staff. If the training agencies do their job, there is bound to be more diversity. Like the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I do not want whole areas of the country to be designated low-pay areas, and to become centres of primarily part-time employment, just because the Government suddenly see the possibility of a quick cost saving. Much could be lost, especially in the more sensitive spheres. Many of the bodies concerned are either dealing directly with the public on matters of great individual concern involving constitutional rights, or dealing with security matters or confidential information held by Government Departments about individuals. We do not want to lose the valuable concept of a public service.
The question is, can we marry two concepts? I should like to believe that we can obtain greater efficiency in every sense—not just economic efficiency, but an efficient service for the consumer. That may mean a Government Department—and hence the generality of taxpayers—or an individual obtaining a licence, a service, information, a map or a charter from the Government agency. It is essential to carry public sector workers with us, and the new clause is directed to that end. Whether it is slightly too cumbersome to achieve its object, or should be incorporated immediately in the Bill, is a matter for discussion, but I strongly support its general aims and hope that the Minister will find some way of meeting them.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) spoke of the need for assurances in line with the seven points cited by the CPSA which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I feel that those assurances are likely to be required in legislation.
I, too, would like an assurance: that the Government, if they do not accept the new clause because of drafting problems, will be willing to introduce suitable amendments later. I do not really trust general statements that this, that and the other will be protected when they are not written down in statute. Statute applies to the future and, although a future Labour Government may change a good deal of it, much will undoubtedly remain for a long time. There is nothing wrong with getting things right now.
I also hope that the specific assurances that we require will apply to all grades in the Civil Service, and not just to executive grades. Let me stress that the new clause requires a ballot on any planned variation in the conditions of civil servants. The Government are keen to introduce ballots, often of a peculiar nature, in certain circumstances—when they feel that it will benefit them to do so. If there are to be ballots, they should allow civil servants some say in, and control of, transfer arrangements as a consequence of any change in the agency in which they happen to work. It would be a healthy development if such provisions were added to assist the membership of Civil Service unions, by contrast with the kind of ballot provisions that are often brought before the House with the purpose of hemming in organised workers and restricting the development of their collective interests.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I shall respond first to the points made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and in doing so, hope to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), before referring to other contributions.
The establishment of a trading fund will not in itself affect the terms and conditions under which civil servants are employed. Departments and agencies are increasingly tailoring their arrangements for personnel to meet their business needs. That process must include the possible introduction of changes in conditions other than those that apply to the Civil Service generally. I stated in Committee that Departments, like all good employers, should, and do, take every step to consult their employees when considering any changes that could have significant implications for them.
Announcing the next steps initiative, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
The Civil Service unions will be consulted about the setting up of particular agencies. They will also be consulted if any change in terms and conditions of civil servants is contemplated."—[Official Report, 18 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 1149.]
I reinforce my right hon. Friend's comments by confirming that we shall consult and seek consultations with Civil Service trade unions in sufficient time to allow for meaningful discussions before the introduction of any new agency or trading fund status.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham welcomes the developments and negotiations in respect of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and its employee representatives. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it will serve as a model for other agencies and trading funds. Clearly it will be up to their managements to make their own proposals. They will not share the same specific problems, situations and opportunities as have arisen in respect of HMSO, but I am sure that the spirit manifest in respect of the negotiations for that body will—in particular because of the warm response that it has received from the Opposition—be emulated by other managers. I am delighted that things have gone well for HMSO, for which I was responsible when it became an agency.
The views and comments of staff and trade unions are an important component in considering change—but ultimately management must take the decisions on how that challenge is met.
The hon. Member for Wrexham asked a number of specific questions, particularly about the Employment Services Agency. He inquired whether it will be transformed into or have a trading fund. At present, it does not fall within the powers of the existing legislation, or as it will be modified by the Bill. Therefore, it will not be possible for the ESA, as it currently operates, to have a trading fund.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will he sufficient time for consultation with the unions on the framework document that is the precursor to the establishment of an agency for the employment services group. There have been several discussions with the trade unions since February 1988 on the intention to establish an agency. I am confident that there will be further consultation in line with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in time for the completion of the framework document.
The hon. Member for Wrexham asked why the framework agreement does not mention trade union consultation. The Employment Services Agency and the framework document are matters for my right hon. and

learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Although I acknowledge that the framework document does not refer specifically to trade unions, it makes the chief executive responsible for conducting "effective employee relations". I expect the hon. Gentleman to agree that that includes consulting staff and trade unions.

Dr. Marek: It will be helpful if the framework document refers specifically to that aspect. The problem is that it does not. If the Government's intention is as the Minister says, they will save themselves a lot of problems, and dispel many rumours, if they will state it clearly.

Mr. Lilley: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The important point is that the framework document spells out the chief executive's responsibility for ensuring "effective employee relations", which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see. Discussions are continuing between management and trade unions on the consultation document, and I am sure that the remarks made during today's debate will be considered in the course of them.

Dr. Marek: Unless a specific reference to trade union consultation is made in the framework document, after April no structure will exist for it. I repeat that it will be useful if that aspect is included in the finalised document.

Mr. Lilley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the absence of a specific reference to trade union consultation does not alter the substantive position and the natural relationship between management, employees and trade unions in any Department, which I hope will continue in a constructive and co-operative way.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said that we have the finest Civil Service in the world and that we do not want to undermine it in any way—I entirely agree. My experience as a Minister has revealed and confirmed that we have a very good Civil Service, of which we as a country can be proud. I cannot agree that it should necessarily be petrified and not be subject to change to take advantage of the best management thinking and practice. I am sure that the Civil Service would not wish to be fossilised. The development of agencies is entirely compatible with the Civil Service's fine traditions.
The hon. Member for Heeley asked whether the Government are planning to erode the conditions under which civil servants work. We want the management of agencies and trading funds to enjoy flexibility. It is not our intention that that should be used to lower standards but to make standards and conditions more appropriate, where necessary. In many circumstances, change may not be necessary. In others, such as with HMSO, it may be desirable to make conditions more relevant to the type of agency and its function.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) supports the general objective of new clause 2, even if he thinks it is a little heavy-handed. I sympathise with the underlying principles that motivate the Opposition in tabling the new clause, but I have even stronger reservations about its effectiveness in achieving the Opposition's objectives and about its desirability. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the House accepts new clause 2.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I apologise to the House because, although I was put on the Standing Committee, for reasons that the Government Whip understands, it took place at the same time as the Committee stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, so I did not attend the Committee. The House should understand that if an hon. Member has been extremely active, and has taken up two thirds of the time in Committee, as I did on the PSA Bill, one cannot absent oneself.
I was curious as to what answer the Minister would give to the pertinent questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I want to ask two short questions and a long question. First, may we have clarification as to why the measure, like so many others, is being dealt with by the Treasury? What has become of the Minister for the Civil Service? It is not my nature to complain about the discourtesy of not being here. I am not in any way sniping or getting at the Minister for the Civil Service, who is one of the most courteous Members in the House, but I am curious about what has become of the Civil Service Department.
Am I right in assuming that, by degrees, control of all matters in relation to the Civil Service has gone back to the Treasury, that the Minister for the Civil Service is a Minister only in name on Monday afternoons to answer parliamentary questions, and that his real function and role are as Minister for the Arts? [Laughter.] Because of the ministerial mirth, I suspect that is about right. We should have explained to us why, over the months and years, the Civil Service Department has been eroded and, as so often before, power has returned whence it came and whence it always will come, the Treasury. Incidentally, I do not say that it is a bad thing, but I think it should be clarified.

Mr. Lilley: If I may clarify it briefly, the Bill is a trading funds Bill, although you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have allowed us to range more widely and to talk about agencies. That is only an indirect aspect of the Bill. The Bill is about Government accounting and trading funds. It has much to do with accounts and accountability. That is why the Treasury has taken the lead. I would have been only too delighted to hand the matter over to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.

Mr. Dalyell: I take that with a pinch of salt. I do not think that the Treasury is ever delighted to hand over power, but we shall let that pass.
My second question is a gentle one. The Minister has said that every reasonable step is taken to consult, and I have no doubt that he meant it, but he also talked about consultation in sufficient time. One lesson that I have learnt from the saga, if I may put it that way, of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers is that consultation, where it has taken place, has been rather sudden.
Is the Minister sure that there is sufficient time for proper consultation on decisions that affect the lives of individuals? Trade unions do not complain for fun about not having time properly to consult. There are great difficulties for people who have to move, often in groups, from one part of the country to another. People have mortgages and children at school. Human problems arise. May we have the absolute assurance that there is sufficient time for consultation?
My third question was prompted by Professor Peter Hennessy, a professor at Strathclyde. On 9 February, when referring to the Public Accounts Committee and the performance of Parliament, he told a large audience in Glasgow:
performance is very patchy and, in one case, that of the Public Accounts Committee, is invariably far superior to the rest. Why? Because the PAC has superb back up in the shape of the National Audit Office and the rest do not. I think it was the former MP for Canterbury, David Crouch, who said the difference between the PAC and a standard department-shadowing select committee was the difference between a management consultancy and a pressure group. He's exactly right. I hope the Procedure Committee under Sir Peter Emery, which is currently looking at the power and the back-up of select committees, will have something robust to say about this when they report—and about the ludicrously restrictive 'Osmotherly Rules' which give civil servant witnesses 60 ways of saying 'I can't answer that' when they appear before select committees.
I want to take the opportunity to ask about the protection of civil servants appearing before Select Committees of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the new clause before us. I do not think that it relates to that. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of licence.

Mr. Dalyell: I just hoped, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would give me even more rope. I was straying into a question that interests me greatly. I suspect that I shall have to write a letter, drawing the attention of the Minister to the guidelines for giving evidence to departmental Select Committees.
Without going over paragraph 4 of the guidelines, I want to ask the Minister one question. Is he sure that civil servants, from agencies or anything covered by the Bill, have the protection that they should be given? The Osmotherly rules came at a time when Select Committees were less developed. There is a problem. I am not persuaded that the Opposition or I have a better answer because there is a question of flexibility. Has the Treasury given any thought to allowing civil servants to be more forthcoming and not to take refuge in those rules? I am not thinking particularly of the Select Committee on Defence and Westland, in which I am particularly interested. I am concerned about general flexibility for civil servants to answer questions as candidly as they would wish.
I see help coming to the Minister from the Officials' Box. I hope that the Parliamentary Private Secretary is fleet of foot. I suspect that the House may learn something interesting on the subject. As the PPS has arrived, I can sit down and await those words of wisdom.

Mr. Lilley: In response to the question about sufficient time for consultation, obviously the time needed will vary from case to case, but there would be no point in consulting if there were not time to carry out the consultation. Therefore, it is in everybody's interest to ensure that there is sufficient time for consultation.
As for the second point about evidence to Select Committees, I fear that my response to that is the mirror image to the first question put by the hon. Gentleman about whether I should be the Minister responding to the debate. I am not equipped to respond to questions about the accountability of civil servants to Select Committees.

Dr. Marek: We have had an interesting debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr.


Michie) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for the pertinent points they raised, which demonstrate the Opposition's concern about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made some intriguing points. When he writes to the Minister, perhaps he will send me a copy of the letter, because I should like to see what points he has in mind. I am sure that they are pertinent and should be considered carefully by the Government. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for his support for the principle of the new clause.
We fear the Prime Minister's heavy hand and the Conservative dogma of cutting public expenditure and privatisation. There are some good points, however. The negotiations with HMSO are a case in point. The Minister gave useful assurances in Committee about consulting the Civil Service trade unions and about the movement of civil servants between agencies and other parts of the Civil Service. It would therefore be wrong for the Opposition to divide the House on the new clause. There is still concern, but in view of the assurances that have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

PROHIBITION OF PRIVATISATION (No. 2)

'No part of a government department where a Government Trading l-und has been established shall be privatised within five years of the establishment of the fund.'.—[Mr. Battle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Battle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Our main concern about the next steps programme is that Government trading funds should not become a simple and quick staging post for privatisation. I hope that the Government will allay our fears by accepting that there should be a period of five years after the establishment of a trading fund within which it cannot be privatised. The eighth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in July 1988 says:
We confess to being slightly confused by the relationship between the Next Steps and the Government's privatisation policy.
I remind the House that privatisation is still a hallmark of the Government's policy. In his speech to the Audit Commission in June 1989, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
Privatisation will continue as an essential part of our policy. There is a major programme in the pipeline and other parts of the public sector will become candidates as they develop a more commercial approach.
The phrase
as they develop a more commercial approach
is crucial to the setting up of Government trading funds and agencies. We wonder what the Government mean by "a more commercial approach."
In the White Paper published in December 1989—"The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies"—we read:
Next steps is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government. But it cannot be ruled out that after a period of years, agencies, like other Government

activities, may be suitable for privatisation where there is a firm intention of privatisation. When an agency is being set up, this will be made clear.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will make that absolutely clear tonight. He ought to specifiy the period that is suggested in new clause 4.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report also said:
The essential thing in any individual case is to avoid uncertainty. If an announcement that part of a department is to become an agency is greeted with the suspicion that it might be privatised, such uncertainty could well damage efforts to improve efficiency and the quality of service. If the organisation is to be privatised, it should be made clear at the outset that this is so.
We must ensure that the damaging effects of uncertainty do not devalue the quality of service that is provided. Therefore, the Bill ought to be amended to specify a clear period within which privatisation cannot take place. We owe it to civil servants to give them a clear reassurance.
In the Standing Committee, the Financial Secretary made the interesting remark, "We certainly do not dig up the roots the day after planting." That is a wholesome image which is in tune with current green thinking, but there is evidence in other policy areas that the day after planting, the Secretary of State for the Environment, for example, as a result of pressure from certain parts of the country, came to believe that the poll tax ought to be uprooted, or looked at, root and branch, for next year. I know that you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to pursue the Financial Secretary's analogy any further. However, it appears that what is set down one day as a policy is uprooted the next. We want the Financial Secretary to assure us that in this case that will not happen.
8.45 pm
More pertinent to the debate is the comment of Sir Peter Middleton, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, in the evidence that he gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee:
As part of the process of seeing whether these organisations should be agencies, it is perfectly natural to look at the three things I suggested: privatisation, contracting out and simply dropping the activity. Secondly, becoming an agency may be a step to privatisation later; it is all part of getting a more commercial attitude. I think this is particularly true of the various trading funds. It is very difficult to privatise things that do not charge for their output. That is the basic problem.
I suggest that that is exactly at the heart of the debate. We must examine that statement about developing a more commercial attitude, particularly as we are dealing with publicly divided services.
In the 1980s, the Government embarked on a great economic experiment. The policy watchword for nearly a decade has been "Privatise". There has been total addiction to what some people would describe as the myth of the arithmetic of the workings of the perfect free market model. During our consideration of the Bill, the Government have moved the emphasis slightly, but it still does not contain the limited guarantees that would make clear to civil servants where they stand, or would make clear to the public that we are talking about preserving, extending and improving the efficiency and quality of services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) referred in the debate on new clause 2 to the Government having isolated people into units. The word "units" is


interesting. It is not a question of looking at people as individuals. The word "units" leads us directly into the accountancy language of economic management. Great claims are made for the "next steps" initiative. We are told that it will lead to improved services. However, all the emphasis is placed on financial performance. That emphasis masks the shift in Government thinking from quality to quantity. How can efficiency and improved quality of service be accurately measured? It is difficult to devise objectives and empirical tests for service industries that prove that the service has been delivered.
I recollect that the Treasury instructed local government to implement a programme called urban programme monitoring initiatives. Although spending on the urban programme for the inner cities was less than 1 per cent. of the total budget, the Government instructed local authorities to monitor those programmes in such detail that, when the planting of trees took place, council officers or voluntary groups were instructed to count the number of trees that had been planted and to return to the site six months later and count them again to find out whether they were still there. They were also instructed to measure the distance travelled when vans or minibuses took elderly people to their luncheon clubs. The accuracy of the figures was all that mattered, regardless of the fact that that might damage the services provided.
Documents have been submitted while the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is being considered in Committee, and emphasis is placed in the medical audit documents on input, output, throughput and episodes of patient care. The emphasis is on quantity measures that have been lifted from accountancy models, using target indicators. However, such models have a habit of cutting out those parts of the service that cannot be measured in detail by mathematical models, although they provide a crucial service to people.
Paragraph 3.19 of "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" under the heading "Impact on Agency financial management" states:
The general framework for providing and managing Civil Service resources described above will give a range of choices. These include—whether an Agency's running costs current expenditure is allocated and monitored gross or net and thus whether its receipts influence or determine the amount it can spend".
That reminded me that the rationale behind the critique of state-planned economies was precisely that gross output measures did not exactly work. It reminded me of the story of electric lamp factories where the plans were to measure only in aggregate watt power, so they could not produce any low-power lamps. It also reminds me of the story of women unloading bricks from a truck and smashing many of them because if the unloading were done more carefully they would produce less and be paid less, the driver of the truck would make fewer runs in the day and finally, his enterprise would clock up fewer tonne-kilometres. Those are recorded episodes of what happened under state-planned economies.
In an article on industrial management in "The Soviet Economic System" Alec Nove writes:
In every case the essence of the problem is that the centre is trying to set up an incentive system designed to achieve more efficiency, but, because it does not and cannot know the specific circumstances, its instructions frequently contradict what those on the spot know to be the sensible thing to do." Yet that is precisely what the Government are doing.
The great irony of our time is that, precisely when the Soviet and other planned economies are moving away

from that model, our Government are insisting that it should be the model for the public sector. I hope that there is still time to say that it might not be the best one. It seems strange that the Government are turning to such evaluations precisely when the Soviet Union is desperately struggling to move away from the straitjacket approach. It is not sufficient simply to mimic the organisation and methods of private business, because they may not be appropriate to the circumstances.
It would be unfair to put to the Financial Secretary all the recorded cases of the Government urging Labour and Conservative local authorities to contract out street cleaning to the private sector only to find that the job was not done properly and the on-cost had to be taken on board again. In Leeds, the local authority contracted out the laundry services only to discover that they ran at a loss when previously they had been fine.
More recently, the Government have been obsessed with pushing various services into the private sector. That is mirrored by the community care proposals put before the House which demonstrate precisely the problem. The London borough of Barnet contracted out its services for the mentally handicapped to an agency and then had to rescue the agency because it was running into insurmountable financial problems as it could not cope with the capital costs of running the services. In other words, some of the costs have to be absorbed by larger organisations and shared around.
The Government know precisely that the proposals a re an attempt to control costs from the centre while disowning responsibility for the quality of the service provided once the fund is set up and we move towards the agencies. What will be the Minister's overriding concern when he sets the performance targets? We suspect that it will be to control the costs from the centre with a view to reducing them. The measures that will be used are those that can be most easily measured but which will drive out vital unmeasurable considerations.
We are entitled to ask to whom the public will complain when they feel that the services are not adequately delivered. An interesting phrase is used in the White Paper when it refers to the Minister and his Department as
the owner of the service".
It is ironic that the service is being handed to the agency chief executive who is being made responsible and the Government will disown the service and take no responsibility for its functions.
Paragraph 4.3 of "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" stated:
Parliamentary control is maintained through—the affirmative Order establishing each fund—the scrutiny of statutory annual accounts, and the power to examine the fund Accounting Officer.
Paragraph 4.5 continues:
Because a fund's detailed cashflow is removed from normal Parliamentary Supply controls, Parliamentary approval is required, by affirmative resolution Order, to the setting up of each fund and the overall limit on its borrowing.
Once they are set up, they are then disowned and passed to the responsibility of those agency chief executives.
In some areas of public policy, we have been there before. We have only to look at the organisation of the health authorities, the development companies and the authorities that deal with water. It will not be sufficient for


the Financial Secretary to reply to the debate by saying that in three years' time there will be monitoring to see how it is working out.
We cannot leave the Bill and the proposals for the trading funds as if there were a bonded warehouse or a holding operation—holding the functions for privatisation in the near future. The threat of privatisation continues to hang over those functions that have been assigned for agency status. One way in which the Government could allay those fears would be to accept the new clause and remove that threat once and for all by removing the ambiguity and by making it absolutely plain to the Civil Service staff and to the public who need the services where the Government stand.

Mr. Beith: I do not want to go into detail on performance indicators, on which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made some comments, because I have tabled a new clause on that subject.
New clause 4 bears directly on whether the trading funds are a bonded warehouse on the trade route to privatisation. That is a perfectly legitimate concern. The Government have the reputation of being the privatising Government. When a similar allegation was made on another occasion, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there was a grain of truth in that. Obviously there are probably candidates for trading fund status which might also be on the list as candidates for privatisation.
The Government must have realised by now that privatisation is rather unpopular, and the experience with water and electricity should convince them of that. Some of the merits of the more commercial approaches to some aspects of the work of the organisations involved are lost in the general sense on the part of the public that they are being done—that their assets are being taken away from them and that they are losing any control that they had over services that are important to them.
They would certainly have that feeling if that threat were to hang over some of the key services that are possible candidates for trading funds. I am thinking of services such as passports, the licensing of patents, and other matters where people's basic right to do something is at stake. It is important for the Government to dispel the impression, if it be false—of course, it may not be false—that trading funds are a halfway house to privatisation.
It will not do the business of setting up trading funds any good if they are seen in that light, because it will not be a route to ensuring that we can have an effective operation going on within the public service. What is the motivation that we need to give the staff involved? We want them to know that it is possible to be a public servant providing a public service. but doing so in a way that is more cost-effective and more conscious of the member of the public as a customer of the service than some of the traditional methods may have been. If those two factors are to be married, the last action to achieve it will be for the staff involved, and some of the public, to feel that the Government are preparing the way for privatisation.
It seems that the purpose of the amendment is almost met by the reality that it is almost inconceivable that the Government could get a privatisation off the ground within five years of setting up a trading fund. So it would not hurt the Government to make it clear that they have no intention of seeking to do so, and thus avoid the necessity for the amendment.
It would help even more if the Government would say that in most areas of the public service—particularly in those areas in which the Government are a monopoly provider of some right, opportunity or privilege which, if withheld, would be a great disadvantage to a member of the public—they do not contemplate privatisation. If they did that, they would give a fairer wind to the trading fund proposals and the next steps initiative, which are all about providing a service to the general public or, in some cases, to Government Departments in a more efficient way.

9 pm

Mr. Dalyell: I preface my remarks—I am sure that I shall be in order in doing so—by saying that in my Scottish constituency experience, the civil servants with whom I deal, including those in the Inland Revenue at East Kilbride, are people of high quality who are obliging. I wish, as the constituency Member, to register my view that overwhelmingly they do an excellent job in my constituency. I believe that civil servants are caring people who, when asked properly, go to infinite trouble, especially where there is a good case to be answered.
But there is a problem to which I draw the attention of the Minister. In Scotland—and, I suspect, elsewhere outside London—to get promotion, often civil servants are expected to move to London. The Civil Service unions which have been considering the measure say that too many promotions have involved moves to London and that such moves are increasingly unpopular, for obvious reasons, with civil servants from Wales, Scotland and the English regions. The unions say:
To management's credit, after many years of union pressure"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I wonder whether he is dealing with the clause that is before the House, which is entitled "Prohibition of privatisation".

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made an interesting speech in which he concentrated on the subject of centralisation. I am on precisely the same point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bluntly, if he was in order, I believe that I am in order——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is not challenging the Chair. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who spoke pertinently to the new clause. I am wondering where the hon. Member's argument is leading us in relation to privatisation. Perhaps it will become clear if I give him another minute in which to develop his theme.

Mr. Dalyell: It certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. The unions say:
To management's credit, after many years of union pressure, cautious moves are now being made to develop a coherent regional career development policy (the `Eight Cities Initiative'). Yet this promising beginning will be completely undermined if the agencies are allowed to build miniature Berlin walls around their own mutually exclusive personnel and pay systems.
It all comes back to what will happen to centralisation if agencies are allowed to go their own way.
The unions say:
One of the 'advantages' of an agency system identified by the Ibbs report was the gradual erosion of national bargaining. Clearly, this threat is of major concern to the union, given the likelihood that decentralised bargaining will


be used to drive down pay and worsen conditions of service in certain areas (particularly outside the South East of England).
I think that I am absolutely on target and in order in asking about the Government's thinking on promotion and centralisation. Under the developments which we are considering, will there be any easing of the pressure to move to this city, whether from Edinburgh, Leeds, Wrexham or elsewhere? Will structures be developed to provide a regional promotion ladder so that people do not feel bound to turn down jobs necessary to their career because housing in London is beyond their pocket? It is a matter of mortgages, housing and schooling for young families. Those factors should not rule out upward mobility in a career. Under the agency set-up, how do the Government envisage that this problem will be alleviated, if not solved?

Mr. Bill Michie: This is a major part of the debate. There are genuine fears that the Bill has nothing to do with efficiency or with whether the service will be better for the Government and the nation but is the first step towards privatisation. In Committee, we spent a considerable time discussing what was meant by a three-year review. I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I thought that the three-year review started after three years, but the Minister confirmed that the review will take place within the first three years, and then we will know what is what. I understand that every Government Department, like every department in the private sector, must be watched, reviewed and changed, but we are suspicious about why this is being done.
We spent a considerable time talking about what the review was all about, and I found some of the Minister's comments ominous, to say the least. Even now, I am not sure whether it is a review or an evaluation. I suspect that the intention is to fatten up one of these units, as has happened in the past, or to slim down some of the operations to make them more attractive for privatisation. Either way, as we know from what is happening in other sectors of industry, the financial restraints or management edicts can be such that the business or unit is no longer attractive to anyone.
That is a good excuse for the Government to say that it does not work at present but would work much better in the private sector. All these tactics have been used, and I see no reason why the Government will change their spots and not use those techniques as they see fit. By the time that happens, most of the damage will have been done to the professions and agencies, so it will be difficult for the Opposition to argue against some change taking place.
There is just cause for concern. The Minister stated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, that he is not likely to dig up the trees or the roots the day after planting. Everyone accepts that. I make the point that he would probably start scratching at the roots the day after planting to see how the tree was getting on. I presume that that is what the evaluation and review are all about. Having said that he would not dig up the trees, the Minister said in Committee:
The hon. Gentleman seeks to put an unduly gloomy interpretation on the period of review. It is normal to provide for a review period.
At the beginning I accepted that. He went on to say:
The purpose of the review is to consider the progress made during the review period.

I am not sure what he meant by that. What worries me is what the Minister went on to say:
As I have said, the vast bulk of the agencies are by their nature unsuitable for privatisation. However, one cannot rule it out absolutely across the board because in certain cases it will be appropriate,
It is clear that in certain cases there is more than a possibility of privatisation. We may breathe a sigh of relief and say that most of the agencies will remain as they are. But let us read on. The Minister said:
circumstances may change so that some agencies fall into that category"—
those agencies which in the previous sentence he said were not the right sort of agencies for privatization—
which were not there initially."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1990; c. 30.]
We have every just cause to move the new clause and press it to a vote. The Minister gave assurances that there would be stability for at least three years and that the Government were not thinking about privatisation. However, in his summing up it was obvious that privatisation was very much in the minds of the Government. We need a categorical assurance that, at least for the first five years, none of the agencies, as spelt out in new clause 4, will be privatised. That is not simply because of our political arguments against privatisation. It is because of the argument that we advanced at the beginning of the debate—that we have a good, professional Civil Service and that the changes in the Bill are already causing anxiety among Civil Service staff and Opposition Members.
All that we need is a period of stability. It is not unreasonable to ask for a guarantee from the Government that, for at least five years after the installation of the agencies, there will be no privatisation. I hope that the Minister will come up with a positive answer to that point.

Mr. Harry Barnes: This is an important new clause and I am pleased to hear that we shall vote on it. Our views should be registered in the Lobbies.
We need the new clause to protect us from the Government's general ideology. They have learnt that they can privatise anything. The new contribution that they have made to political thought in capitalist terms is that privatisation knows no bounds. They have learnt to develop tactics to achieve privatisation. The measure can be applied within the Civil Service as well as many other public services, such as the National Health Service. We should protect ourselves against that.
In many ways, the new clause is modest. It says:
No part of a Government department where a Government Trading Fund has been established shall be privatised",
and it might have stopped there but it goes on
within five years of the establishment of the fund.
If it had stopped at "privatised", it would have meant that if the Government wished to privatise one of the agencies they would have needed primary legislation. Possibly that is the type of amendment that should have been tabled. I realise that in politics there is a need to be practical and to press the Government as much as possible within reasonable bounds to make them accept at least the amendments and new clauses that they may have half conceded against some of their instincts and interests. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heely (Mr. Michie) has said, at least that would provide some time for reflection before making any move.
In the past, Socialists have been used to ideological disputes. There has always been an argument about public ownership and about whether we should have nationalised industries or other forms of ownership in which there is greater worker participation, for instance. There has also been a continual debate about the bounds to which Socialism should go in relation to ownership. Should it be to the "commanding heights" of the economy, as Nye Bevan described it in terms of public provision, or should it extend to the lot, as some people, on some occasions, have engaged in advocating when on an ideological bent that they could not stop?
9.15 pm
In fact, we have the mirror image of what has happened in the Conservative party. Conservatives have now become the people who want the lot. In the end, there are no bounds to the areas to which their ideology can take them, irrespective of questions such as the nature and running of society, the power forces that exist in society, and problems of exploitation. Conservatives have come to the view that the Government can privatise everything. That has always been obvious in relation to industry. We have had big battles in the House about the steel industry and about whether it should be part of public or private provision.
Under a Right-wing Conservative Government, we could have expected that the public utilities, such as water and gas, would be added to the list and that there would be major debates about them. We feel that privatisation is inappropriate because those areas should be within the public responsibility and be surrounded by democratic organisation. However, the extra consideration that the Government now have in mind is that all public services, including local government, the Health Service, the Civil Service, and the prisons—as can be adduced from their ideological tracts—are open for privatisation. All that is needed is a command Government, holding the reins, dishing out the contracts and the public money that can be used in those areas. But that is not what we should have.
Hon. Members have said how grand the Civil Service is and have referred to the good tradition of the Civil Service in this country. Part of what is good about the Civil Service is its tradition of public service and the fact that it does not have to believe that it must make ends meet or do things as cheaply as possible and run according to the market guide. The people involved in it are not there just for themselves; they are associated with the work that they are doing and are concerned about the services that they provide.
The House itself seems to have become a body in which there is too much interest in oneself. This applies especially to Conservative Members. They have too much interest in their own commercial values, and are less concerned about the fact that they are here to provide a public service. They should be willing to act to provide a public service and, to some extent, to sacrifice their own individual interests, promotion, concerns and advancement to achieve that end. Although there are obviously counter-forces in the Civil Service, in that people are interested in their own promotion, we should nevertheless nurture that spirit in the Civil Service.
The new clause at least tries to protect something that has existed in the past and would allow us to try to hold

on to the spirit of the Civil Service even though we are talking about Government trading funds and agencies and all the problems that they will create before we can absorb the people concerned back into a proper public service. That spirit should then be reflected in all the other public services to which I have referred. Perhaps we can then enter into discussions about how far that spirit of public service and social provision should be extended into areas such as the public utilities and our industries, at least as far as the "commanding heights" are concerned.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made a vigorous and intellectually stimulating speech. I shall try to resist the temptation to follow all the intellectual hares that he started, much as I should like to do so.
The hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said that "next steps" was primarily about those operations that are to remain within Government control. Where there is a firm intention to privatise, this will be made clear when the agency is being set up.
Before agencies are set up, all other options, including abolition and privatisation, are examined. In most cases, this examination leads to the conclusion that the nature of services provided by the agencies does not make privatisation a feasible or realistic option. That is particularly true of bodies such as the planning inspectorate. That is not to say that some activities might not be contracted out, but generally our expectation is that most mainstream activities of next steps agencies will continue to remain within central Government for the foreseeable future.
We cannot rule out the possibility that in a few cases circumstances might change. But even if they did, privatisation is not likely in practice to take place until five years have elapsed. A major review of options is not likely to take place until the framework document is reviewed, usually about three years after agency status has been conferred. Experience suggests that primary legislation would almost certainly be required, so five years is likely to be a minimum time-scale. I think that I said in Committee that the chances of any privatisation occurring before five years had elapsed was "vanishingly small".
It is one thing to give assurances; it is another to set up an absolute legislative barrier. I cannot foresee all possible circumstances, and I therefore cannot absolutely rule out privatisation in less than five years. Moreover, as Conservative Members see major benefits arising from privatization—for staff as well as for taxpayer and customer—I should not wish to do so either.
Opposition Members seem to suggest that we might be concealing an intention to privatise. I assure them that there is a clear difference between us on the question of privatisation. We on the Conservative Benches are proud of our belief in privatisation. We believe that it is a valuable and essentially popular policy. If we intend to privatise, we make it clear; we boast about it and do not hide our light under a bushel.

Mr. Bill Michie: We are getting more worried. The Minister seems to be saying, "We are not likely to privatise for five years, but we may." All this dithering is not helping the profession or the Departments that we wish to protect. It would be much easier, fairer and more honest to allow


a five-year cooling-off period. That would be no skin off the Government's nose—unless they intend to do something but are not prepared to say so.

Mr. Lilley: I think that I have made it clear that it is extremely unlikely that there would be privatisation in under five years after the agency was set up. That is why the sort of ban that Opposition Members seek is unnecessary. But it is conceivable that, in some remote circumstances, it would be desirable to privatise an agency in a shorter timescale, so it would be foolish to rule it out. It is foolish to close off options—even remote options— ahead of the game.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West said that our privatisation programme was the consequence of an obsession with the theory of the perfect market. That was a hare that I was tempted to follow because, in a book that I wrote with Samuel Brittan, one chapter demolished the myth of the perfect market. It is a silly idea. We work on the basis of an acknowledgment of the imperfections of life and one of the responses to those imperfections is to acknowledge that private ownership works much better than public ownership. The hon. Gentleman went on to describe some of the absurdities that follow from state planning, centralised control and public ownership. The lesson to be learnt from that is: "Privatise where you can, and where you cannot, decentralise or commercialise."
It is bizarre to suggest that the creation of agencies is a centralising measure, still less the creation of trading funds. They are both decentralising measures that give greater managerial flexibility to those bodies remaining firmly within the public sector. That is a desirable thing to do.

Mr. Battle: Is it not the case that, although managerial responsibilities will be given to the chief executive of the agency, the financial purse strings will still be held by the Minister?

Mr. Lilley: They will be given greater commercial freedom within the discipline and accountability of the trading fund, which is desirable. That is why Governments of both parties have successfully operated trading funds. Neither party is ideologically opposed to trading funds in principle.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West suggested that we were in some way disowning quality of service when we set up agencies or trading funds. That is not so. The Minister will remain responsible to the House for the quality of service of agencies which remain part of his Department. The report on the next steps programme said that agencies would be required to report not just on efficiency but on "quality of service targets" over the previous year, "set against previous trends". They will be responsible for quality and they will be given targets for quality and be expected to report on whether they met them.

Mr. Dalyell: The interesting book that the Minister wrote with Sam Brittan is well worth reading.
I want to ask the Minister about the mechanics of parliamentary questioning. As I understand it, it will be much more difficult, via the Table Office, to table questions under the new policy, although I concede that there is a general report back. Have the Government asked the Clerks what will happen in relation to parliamentary questions?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on my book. He is one of a rare and select breed, but I did not realise he was of such a rare and select breed to have read my book. That puts him in a very narrow and refined coterie.
The accountability of agencies to the House, and their responsiveness to questions, will be unaltered by the establishment of an agency. I am happy to confirm that. It is only nationalised industries that are not properly accountable to the House which is a good reason for privatising them.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that he thought that privatisation was unpopular. I hope that he and his party will come out firmly against it at the next election, because that will considerably undermine his party's standing and improve the Government's. I am glad for his hints about that. He thought that we should go along with the amendment and give a five-year guarantee. I do not agree with him.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell ) spoke of promotion and centralisation, and their inter-relationship. I could respond that he was asking the wrong question under the wrong clause to the wrong Minister, because that is a matter for the Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service. However, I shall endeavour to be helpful: the establishment of agencies is not a centralising measure, but a decentralising one.
We believe that there should be interchanges of staff at all levels between Departments and agencies. In particular, we think that it is important that all who aspire to rise in the Civil Service should have experience of management and, where practicable, that should include a successful period in an agency. I hope that my explanation meets some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said that he found my statements in the Standing Committee ominous when I referred to reviews. However, he did not complete the quotation that he read out, the last few words of which were:
But that will be … rare."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1990; c. 30.]
I reiterate that and say that it will be very rare.

Mr. Michie: "Comparatively rare."

Mr. Lilley: Right—"comparatively rare." I reiterate the word "rare": I am even prepared to drop the word "comparatively". However, the interesting logic of the hon Gentleman's remarks and of those of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) rests in the presumption that many of these bodies are, in principle, privatisable. There is an interesting reversal of roles in this. We do not think that there is scope in most of these cases for privatisation; we do not even think that it would be meaningful to envisage it. So to fear it, or to suggest that agencies are all prime candidates for privatisation and that it requires only restraint or legislative prohibition to stop the Government privatising them, seems a little bizarre.

Mr. Barnes: Unfortunately, the Minister is not the only Conservative writing books on this subject. The general thrust of Government policy in recent years, especially since the third electoral victory, has been in the direction of privatisation. One does not need to be a crystal ball gazer to see the trend.

Mr. Lilley: Apart from being a distinguished author with at least one reader, I am also the Minister responsible for privatisation. I do not have the grand title of my counterpart in Poland—the Plenipotentiary for Privatisation—but I am supposed to be looking for opportunities to privatise. Be that as it may, in most of the areas that we are discussing today it is not a runner. Opposition Members are unduly concerned.
I do not want to prolong the debate; I believe that I have answered the main points. I have confirmed that those who are worried about privatisation have nothing to fear in the context of most of the agencies. The chances of any of them being privatised within five years are vanishingly small, and in my view the new clause is unnecessary.

Mr. Dalyell: I have had a quick word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and have discovered that we both thought that it has not been made clear that those who have a spell in an agency will somehow improve their promotion prospects or earn brownie points. I am not saying that that is wrong; I am saying that it is an interesting statement.
Have guidelines been issued to this effect? Do civil servants know that this is now policy?

Mr. Lilley: I have made this point in a letter to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It will apply increasingly as more agencies exist in which civil servants can become successful. I can, however, confirm that the idea is more widely known than the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. The document "Developments in the Next steps Programme" states:
The Government agrees there must be genuine interchangeability between policy and executive functions. Therefore, while there is no question of a mechanistic approach to career planning, the Government will aim to ensure that as part of their career development key staff can gain experience of both management and policy work.
So the basic notion has been spelt out in public, even though some hon. Members found it novel.

Dr. Marek: The quotation in the Minister's document is rather different from what he said before. I am sure that it would surprise most civil servants to learn that their promotion prospects will not be as good if they have not worked in an agency. Of course I know that it is the Government's intention that up to three quarters of the Civil Service will eventually be part of agencies.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the Financial Secretary is not prepared to accept our new clause. It is sensible and talks about no privatisation within five years. The Financial Secretary has said that there is only a remote possibility of any agency being privatised before five years. If it is remote that is a good reason to accept the new clause. He did not say that accepting the new clause would be good management policy because it would be good for the morale of civil servants working in the agencies. We have had a good debate apart from that point which did not come across from the Government.
Any civil servant who works in an agency or who suddenly finds himself in an agency will be unsure of his future even though it is not the immediate intention to privatise that agency. If our new clause and the guarantee that it contains were accepted, at least civil servants would have five years during which they would continue to be part of the Civil Service and there would be no question of

people being compulsorily hived off, made redundant or moved from one area to another. That would be good for the morale of civil servants and that would be reflected in their work. Of course that would also be good for the public. It is a pity that that matter was not mentioned by the Government.
The other fears have been well illustrated by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) seems to share our worries about this matter and I am happy to have his support.
The new clause is important and simple. It was not difficult to draft and did not require the expertise of a parliamentary draftsman. The Government could have accepted it, but they have not. Could one of the reasons be what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech to the Audit Commission on 21 June 1989? At that time, he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and he said:
Privatisation will continue as an essential part of our policy. There is a major programme in the pipeline and other parts of the public sector will become candidates as they develop a more commercial approach.
It worries the Opposition that, as parts of the public sector develop a commercial approach, they will be candidates for privatisation.
Five or ten minutes ago, the Financial Secretary said that the Government will privatise where they can and commercialise where they cannot. If we add to that what the present Chancellor said on 21 June last year, it is clear to me and to my hon. Friends that eventually there will be plans for privatisation of substantial parts of the Civil Service. The Government say that that is not true, but they will have to do more than they have been doing up to now to convince us of that.
This has been a good debate and the arguments have been well advanced. There is a clear division of opinion between the Opposition and the Government and I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 148.

Division No. 94]
[9.38 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beckett, Margaret
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beith, A. J.
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Clay, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Darling, Alistair
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John






Maxton, John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N.


Nellist, Dave
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter L.
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Allen McKay.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Jessel, Toby


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Arbuthnot, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Ashby, David
Kilfedder, James


Aspinwall, Jack
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Atkins, Robert
Knapman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Batiste, Spencer
Knowles, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Lang, Ian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W.
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lilley, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Lord, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Brazier, Julian
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Bright, Graham
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Maclean, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Malins, Humfrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Mans, Keith


Burns, Simon
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Burt, Alistair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Butler, Chris
May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Butterfill, John
Miller, Sir Hal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mills, Iain


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mitchell, Sir David


Carrington, Matthew
Moate, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Chapman, Sydney
Morrison, Sir Charles


Churchill, Mr
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Couchman, James
Needham, Richard


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Nelson, Anthony


Day, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Nicholls, Patrick


Dover, Den
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dunn, Bob
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Emery, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Paice, James


Favell, Tony
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Forman, Nigel
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fry, Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stern, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stevens, Lewis


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jack, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John





Summerson, Hugo
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. David Lightbown.


Watts, John

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADING FUNDS: NECESSARY CONDITIONS

'.—(1) No order establishing a trading fund shall be made until the responsible Minister has published—

(a) details of the performance indicators against which he intends the record of the trading fund in terms of quality of service to be measured and judged; and
(b) clear guidelines as to what information the accounts and reports of the trading fund will have to include.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause requires that no trading fund shall be established until the Minister responsible has published details of the performance indicators against which he intends the record of the trading fund to be judged, and clear guidelines as to the information that the fund's reports and accounts must include.
It is generally agreed that proper performance indicators must be set for trading funds. That was stressed by the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which stated:
We consider it important that departments and Agencies aim to be fully aware of the types, levels and standards of service their customers are looking for.
The Committee insisted that agencies should ascertain their customers' views, as should Departments before they became agencies. The report added, in paragraph (xii):
we consider it necessary that Agencies should be required to demonstrate the relative success with which their activities are carried out …
It is equally important that the performance indicators are known in advance, otherwise the danger is that a trading fund will be established that has as its explicit objective the provision of a service more cheaply without regard to the quality of that service or to the interests of the community as a whole.
I stress both considerations, because many of the activities undertaken in the public service by organisations that might be turned into trading funds relate to the granting of a licence or permission to an individual that has important indications for the community. Such licences or permissions can be provided much more cheaply if the public service does not examine carefully whether an individual is a fit person to hold a particular licence, a vehicle is fit to be licensed, or a passport granted—which, in the absence of adequate security, might be issued against forged documents.
In many areas, there is public interest in the job being done extremely thoroughly and carefully. There is also public interest in ensuring that the individual customer enjoys a quick response. To achieve both is frequently


expensive. If performance indicators do not allow for that, there will be serious repercussions for the individuals and for the community as a whole.
Another powerful argument for knowing the performance indicators is that so many of the services involved have no competition. The benefits of a trading fund and of running part of the public service on a more commercial basis may include greater efficiency, more self-reliance, and greater autonomy for the individual civil servant. Many advantages could flow from people providing a service on an efficient basis that they have organised rather than having to conform to a centralised model.
One of the main gains to be derived from a commercial style of operation will arise only if there is competition. In many cases, that will be impossible. The list included in next steps includes the vehicle inspectorate, Companies house, HMSO, and the weights and measures laboratory. It is inconceivable that they could face any competition. There could not really be two organisations producing rival copies of Acts of Parliament to see which was cheaper. However, I am bound to say that they are now so expensive that someone should be able to produce them more cheaply. The other day I was reminded by the Clerk of the House that the daily part of Hansard, which now costs £5, cost only sixpence when he entered the service of the House. That is a pretty staggering rate of inflation, even for the Governments of both parties that have been in power over that period.
In a great many of the services listed, it is impossible to imagine competition—the Department of the Registers of Scotland, the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Directorate, the Driving Standards Agency, the Employment Service, the Passport Office, the Patent Office, and the radio communication division in the Department of Trade and Industry which gives approval for the use of certain kinds of radio equipment which might interfere with the network. In none of those services can there be a competitor. Therefore, it is open to the agency to charge what it likes and to provide indifferent service.
One reason for considering the trading fund approach has been the experience in many parts of the public service that the lack of the spur of competition makes it likely that inefficiency will persist. I have been a strong critic of the passport offices on that account. We are talking about areas of work in which there cannot, by definition, be competition. That makes them particularly inappropriate for privatisation. It also makes it all the more important that we have clear performance indicators which are discussed in advance so that we know that they will be concerned not solely with cutting the cost of the service, but also with the level of service the customer can expect—for example, how quickly he can get his passport.
The performance indicators should be concerned with the general public interest and should ensure that, where regulation, public protection or security are involved, they are attended to thoroughly and carefully. No agency should be created unless we know in advance what the criteria are. That is one aspect of the new clause.
The other aspect is that we should know what will be in the published accounts of the agency, and what an agency will be required to make available by way of information to the public. In Committee I questioned the Minister about what appeared to be a hole in the legislation which

seemed to give the Treasury the ability to tell a trading fund that it did not need to publish accounts or to direct it, indeed, not to publish accounts. As the question was difficult to answer at the time, the Minister has since written to me, setting out why he believes that it would not be necessary to amend the Bill in this respect. I am grateful to him.
Having studied the matter carefully, the Minister asserts that, because section 4(6) of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 is not being repealed, all trading funds will be required to prepare statements of account and lay them before Parliament. He says that that obligation has not disappeared. What he was concerned about in the part of the Bill to which I referred in Committee was the timing of other forms of account which the Treasury may require agencies to provide. That is all well and good, but I still think that we should know at the point when an agency is set up whether the information which the public and Parliament will get about it will be adequate to measure its performance.
Those seem to be reasonable objectives to which the Minister should agree. I see no reason why they should not be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Lilley: I welcome the emphasis that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has placed on the importance of quality of service to the customer. I have great sympathy with that aspect of the new clause that could be regarded as an attempt to put into statute the Government's intentions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our general intention is that all agencies will be set performance targets, including quality of service targets. In general, I hope that it will be possible to give some indication of what the targets will be when the order establishing a trading fund is debated, but it may not always be possible to provide full details, as the new clause would require, because there will inevitably be a time lag between publishing the order establishing the trading fund and the date on which the fund comes into being.
We also think it important to encourage the development of better measures of output and performance over a period. I therefore do not think that it would be appropriate to limit such measures in every case to those that were published before the publication of the order establishing the trading fund.
The second part of the amendment would require the responsible Minister to issue clear guidelines as to what information the accounts and report will include. The hon. Member may not be aware that in December the Treasury published guidance on the coverage of trading funds accounts in a bookled entitled "Trading Accounts: A Guide for Government Departments and Non-Departmental Public Bodies". I can recommend it to hon. Members as a delightful read if they ever suffer from insomnia. Copies have been placed in the Library.
We envisage that proper guidelines and quality standards will be set for each trading fund. We shall want details of how they have performed. We shall also want to compare targets and previous performance.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Government Trading Bill, the Ways and Means Motions relating to the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill and the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Government Trading Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Lilley: It would be inappropriate to enshrine such a provision in rigid statutory form, as the new clause attempts to do. However, I sympathise with the spirit that underlies it.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 6

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER

'Within one year of the coming into effect of this Act, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament proposals for the establishment of a Civil Service Commissioner (Ombudsman) who shall have power to set minimum standards of service for Civil Service agencies providing a service to the public and financed by means of a trading fund, and to look into, and recommend appropriate remedies and compensation for, complaints made by members of the public with regard to the operation of any such government agency or trading fund.'.—[Marek.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 is related to new clause 5, but goes a little further. It would give the public a little more confidence in the quality standards that are to be set by agencies and trading funds. It provides for an ombudsman who would have control over quality standards. It would not be left just to the Government.
The Government and the Civil Service have not done much work on establishing how agencies could measure the quality of services provided. Certainly very little work has been done on providing the mechanisms for consumer or staff input into quality control.
Mr. Peter Kemp, the "next steps" projects manager, gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee which is recorded in the Committee's 38th report, published in October 1989. He said:
The word 'customer' is a very dangerous and difficult word to use in the context of public service.
That leads me to believe that those who are organising agencies and Government trading funds do not like the word "customer" and therefore do not use it. They are more concerned with administration and saving public money.
A better quotation is again to be found in the Public Accounts Committee's October 1989 report. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) asked:
How do they know what the taxpayers and customers who use the DSS want and think of their present service?
The matter under discussion was the introduction of agency status for the Department of Social Security. My hon. Friend said:

If you do not know it how can you set up an agency system designed to meet their requirements efficiently and effectively? I am asking what specific plans you have to consult them.
Mr. Kemp replied:
I do not know what specific plans the DSS have, nor am I quite sure how the DSS would set out specifically consulting claimants or claimants' representatives.
That is the problem. Therefore, we have tabled the new clauses. The work has not been done. The introduction of trading agencies and trading funds has more to do with the Government's wish to save public money and to improve administration. They want to introduce even more commercialisation, with a view to eventual privatisation.
It is possible to consider the consumer and staff input. To make a constituency point, Wrexham has a DSS consumer committee. I wonder how many DSS consumer committees there are up and down the country. That is one way of getting more consumer input into quality control. The DSS office in Wrexham works very well, but that is certainly not always the case in other parts of the country.
I shall quote two documents about civil servants, their contact with journalists and their use of official information. My first quote has some lessons for Government trading funds. The new draft code of conduct was published following the Official Secrets Act 1989. Paragraph 9904 states:
Civil servants must exercise care in handling the information that has come into their possession in the course of their official duties and should not forget that they arc employed for the purposes of the Department in which they are now serving. They owe duties of confidentiality and loyal service to the Crown. Since constitutionally the Crown acts on the advice of Ministers who are answerable for their Departments in Parliament, these duties are for all practical purposes only to the Government of the day.
Of course there is no question of looking after arty concerns of the consumer or the public—some people might say, quite rightly—but the Government exist for the benefit of the public and the consumer and it should be absolutely clear what rights consumers have and what quality standards Ministers set for their civil servants in various Departments so that they can perform their services for the benefit of the public.
If the ethos behind the new draft of the code of conduct were enlarged, quality standards would not be made available for the public. Something would be said so that the public thought that there were quality standards, but they would not have full access to information about exactly what they meant, how they operated and what redress the public would have in any instance where they thought that the standard of quality fell short.
I shall also quote a document dated November 1989 which has been circulated quite widely in the Civil Service. It is from the office of the Minister for the Civil Service and is entitled, "Relations with Journalists". Paragraph 11 states:
In cases of doubt or disagreement, the final approval for appearances in these as in other current affairs programmes rests with the Prime Minister,"—
the Prime Minister's heavy hand is appearing again—
who will wish to take account of recommendations by Ministerial colleagues and, as Minister for the Civil Service, of any views put forward by the Head of the Home Civil Service, as to the propriety of participation by civil servants. The main considerations will be whether the final result is likely to be of value to the Government, the Civil Service and to the Department concerned.
It says nothing about whether it will be of any value to the public or whether quality standards will be maintained.
I know that the document deals with relations with journalists, but it is pertinent to say that that paragraph says nothing about objectivity, truth or benefit to the public. It simply says that the final result is likely to be of value to the Government; whether it is right or wrong or whether it is meritorious is not mentioned. It is concerned only with
the Civil Service and … the Department concerned; whether Ministers and civil servants can be seen to be behaving naturally, or forced in a play-acting situation by 'fly on the wall' techniques; and whether the discussions can be recorded without damage to the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. Any submission to No. 10 should deal specifically with these points.
If the relations that the Government have or would like civil servants to have with the media and the press and their code of conduct are anything to go by I do not have much confidence in what the Government say about quality standards to the public, being understood by the public and having the general confidence of the public.
I tabled a written question about the passport office and how it would improve its quality standards. I was told in reply:
The passport department will be aiming in 1990 to process all straightforward, non-urgent passport applications within a maximum of 30 working days during the peak period between January and June, and within 20 working days at other times. Urgent cases will receive priority and should not normally be subject to delay".—[Official Report, 25 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 882.]
I am confused about what
should not normally be subject to delay
means when the first part of the answer refers to 20 days and the latter to 30 days. It is not good enough to have passport offices with quality standards of 20 days for half of the year and 30 days for the other half. That is not good enough and the public will not put up with it. The Government must do better. The new clause seeks to do something about it, and it would be a step in the right direction.
The Opposition are the party of the consumer. The Conservatives are for bureaucracy and administration and it is time they realised that if they are to do better—and they must do better if they are to come within sight of the Labour party at the next general election—they should consider the consumer more.

Mr. Lilley: I can appreciate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) showing interest in, and having views about, the draft code of conduct, but it concerns only relationships between the Crown as employer and civil servants as employees of the Crown, so it is not strictly relevant to quality of service. Nor is it distinctly related to agencies and trading funds.
I have some sympathy for the intentions of the new clause. Next steps agencies fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, and he can investigate complaints of maladministration made against them. The ombudsman proposed by the amendment would unnecessarily duplicate the existing investigative powers of the parliamentary commissioner.
The new clause also proposes that the ombudsman should have statutory powers to set minimum standards. That would clearly conflict with the exercise of ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament. The Minister in charge of a Department is responsible for

setting standards for quality of service. That remains just as true in the context of agencies. He may be called to account by Parliament for his decisions.
It would, at the least, cause confusion to superimpose on those established and well-understood arrangements a separate statutory authority for an ombudsman to set standards. I therefore cannot advise the House to accept the new clause.

Mr. Bill Michie: I listened to the Minister carefully, having listened even more carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). It seems strange that the Government should feel that there is no need to protect public interests by means of an ombudsman to whom people can bring complaints and queries.
I recall long debates on social security legislation involving the establishment of new regulations by which people would get money from the DSS. The system of appeal was changed. My hon. Friends and I complained that instead of having the normal independent tribunal, the Government were removing from the public their ordinary rights should they feel aggrieved about their treatment by Government Departments or other organs of the establishment.
In that case, the Government of the day took away the right of appeal to an independent tribunal and announced that should there be anomalies or complaints, complainants should appeal to an officer in the department concerned. If, after that officer had made his judgment—saying, perhaps, " I am sorry, but you are not entitled to a grant"—the person still felt aggrieved, he or she could appeal to the next senior officer. As we pointed out at the time, the junior officer concerned would be in the same department as the senior officer and would, of course, take instructions from his superior. In that case there was no genuine appeals system. Although we pointed that out, the Government were not prepared to listen to our pleas.
We are anxious to have in position a genuine ombudsman so that if a person feels that he or she has not had a fair deal from, say, a DSS office, application can be made to the ombudsman. It seems that the existing ombudsman is not all that busy, due, no doubt, to the existing mechanism for appeal. The Government say that we do not need an ombudsman and that the work can be done through the Secretary of State, yet they have set up an ombudsman mechanism that is additional to the Secretary of State to deal with social security benefits. Goodness knows, the Secretary of State has enough power already.
An anomaly exists. For some strange reason, the Government are afraid of having someone who is independent of the Government and Departments and who can protect the interests of ordinary people who come across misdeeds or misunderstandings in Departments. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister will reconsider and at least be consistent with Government philosophy in the past.

Dr. Marek: The Financial Secretary's reply was unconvincing. We must stand up for the consumer, who has a vital interest in these matters. The new clause goes some way towards securing that interest, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 133.

Division No. 95]
[10–15 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Battle, John
McWilliam, John


Beith, A. J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Boateng, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Clay, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Clelland, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tarn
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dewar, Donald
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Robertson, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Eadie, Alexander
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Derek
Wareing, Robert N.


Fyfe, Maria
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Worthington, Tony


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Allen McKay.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Benyon, W.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottom ley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, Bob


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fallon, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butler, Chris
Franks, Cecil





Fry, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawkins, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Speller, Tony


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Steen, Anthony


Kilfedder, James
Stern, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stevens, Lewis


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Summerson, Hugo


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lang, Ian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lawrence, Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lilley, Peter
Thorne, Neil


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thurnham, Peter


Lord, Michael
Trippier, David


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Walden, George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Ward, John


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Wheeler, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Sir Hal
Yeo, Tim


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mitchell, Sir David



Moate, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Morrison, Sir Charles



Moynihan, Hon Colin

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill reported, with an amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified——

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State—

(a) for paying sums to Scottish Enterprise, in so far as not already authorised by the Resolution (Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill [Money]) of 9th January, in respect of the exercise of its functions and in respect of its administrative expenses;
(b) for making loans to Scottish Enterprise for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions; and
(c) for fulfilling guarantees given by him in respect of sums borrowed by Scottish Enterprise from persons other than the Secretary of State or given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Scottish Development Agency from such persons,

so long as the relevant aggregate amount outstanding shall not exceed £3,000 million.
In this Resolution—
general external borrowing" has the same meaning as in the Act;
relevant aggregate amount outstanding" means the aggregate amount outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of—

(a) the general external borrowing of—

(i) Scottish Enterprise and its subsidiaries; and
(ii) the Scottish Development Agency,

(b) sums issued by the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under the Act or by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under Schedule 2 to the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, being sums which have not been repaid;
(c) sums paid (other than by way of lending) to Scottish Enterprise by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament but with there being deducted—

(i) any such sums repaid to the Secretary of State by the body; and
(ii) any such sums paid in respect of the administrative expenses of Scottish Enterprise; and

(d) loans guaranteed by Scottish Enterprise and by any of its subsidiaries; and

"subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
The new money resolution has had to be introduced because of the extensive amendments that the Government have tabled to the financial arrangements that are to apply to Scottish Enterprise. I hope that we shall have an opportunity in Committee tomorrow to debate the various amendments substantively and I look forward to explaining the purpose behind them and their effects at more length then.
On this occasion, I hope that it may suffice if I simply sketch out, first, the objectives behind our amendments;secondly, the technical means by which the objectives will be achieved; and, thirdly, the implications for the money resolution. Our objectives can be expressed briefly—they are to simplify and to make more flexible the financial arrangements for Scottish Enterprise. I hope that

Opposition Members will share those objectives. They will be achieved primarily by doing away with both public dividend capital and national loans fund lending, both of which have proved complicated and inflexible, and replacing them with voted loans.
Voted loans will allow far more flexibility in comparison with the limitations of public dividend capital and national loans fund lending. I expect that to be widely welcomed by those who operate the financial arrangements. Because the loans will be voted, there will be no diminution of parliamentary oversight—indeed, quite the reverse. Our intention is to use voted loans only for those functions funded at present from public dividend capital or national loans fund lending. However, the provisions that we propose would in principle allow the flexibility of using grant in aid and/or voted loans for the full range of Scottish Enterprise functions, with the single exception of administrative expenses which are to be limited to grant in aid only. That will allow the maximum scope for responding to future circumstances.
The amendments that the Government have tabled in Committee, as well as deleting powers in relation to public dividend capital and national loans fund lending and inserting instead new powers in relation to voted loans, also make two other consequential changes. They make explicit provision to allow a special payment of grant in aid to the Scottish Development Agency to extinguish the outstanding PDC and NLF obligations and they make provision to recover to the Consolidated Fund the future receipts relating to those investments made with PDC or NLF resources that remain in being when the PDC and NLF regimes disappear.
A further modest but useful amendment gives the Secretary of State for Scotland, rather than the Treasury, the power to guarantee external borrowing.
This supplementary money resolution provides the necessary supporting framework for the amendments. It supplements the original money resolution by referring to the new funding mechanism of voted loans and by authorising the payment of grant for all Scottish Enterprise's functions. It also gives authority to the Secretary of State to use money provided by Parliament to fulfil guarantees given by him in respect of borrowing by Scottish Enterprise.
Finally, the supplementary resolution provides that the total financial resources available to Scottish Enterprise are not to exceed £3 billion. That is in line with the amendment to clause 23 that the Government have tabled. The revised limit now includes the full range of programmes and activities for which Scottish Enterprise will be responsible, whereas the limit published in the Bill was not so comprehensive. I can, however, assure the House that there has been no change in the underlying figures; it is simply that now all funding items, except administrative items, have been brought into account.
I hope that I have explained the rationale for, and effect of, our financial amendments and the consequential need for this supplementary money resolution, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tony Worthington: We shall have the opportunity tomorrow to discuss the money resolution in detail in Committee if we wish to do so, but this is a useful opportunity to debate the question of


money. During the six weeks of the Bill's passage through the House, it has become increasingly obvious that the Government face major problems—not in this detailed technical financial material but in the availability of money to Scottish Enterprise. It has been an illuminating few weeks, during which all that we seem to have got from the Minister is talk of flexible enterprise or enterprising flexibility. We need to go into more detail on the question of money.
The funding seems to be disappearing. Week by week we move further away from the intention in the explanatory and financial memorandum:
It is intended that the resources made available by the Secretary of State to the two new bodies should initially be broadly equivalent to that which would have been provided for their predecessor bodies combined.
We have said that that is about £500 million, but that money seems to be disappearing. The grant in aid, which is the main source of money for the SDA, was cut in real terms by £3 million last year, while the grant to the Welsh Development Agency rose by £6 million. The SDA seems to be chronically strapped for cash. People are not even proposing projects any more, because they know that there is no chance of their being accepted.
I should be more likely to believe the commitment in the Bill if it came from the Secretary of State for Wales but the Secretary of State for Scotland has a credibility gap in respect of the resources to be provided for Scottish Enterprise. I am told by Welsh Members that the Ebbw Vale garden festival and the valleys initiative are both going ahead. When the Glasgow garden festival went ahead, everything else seemed to stop because of the problems of financing. The Welsh Development Agency had 510 staff in 1988–89 and 580 in 1989–90—an increase of 70 in a year. The contrast with the SDA's staff, who are seeking every opportunity to leave, is considerable.
It is not only the grant-in-aid money that is in doubt; the Scottish Development Agency has also been told to sell its property portfolio. Last year the surplus on the property portfolio was £13·6 million. That is being sold off, and the proceeds will go to the Treasury. Where is that surplus—the income—to come from in future to fund Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise? Parts of the equity portfolio are also being sold off, which will give a short-term return to the Treasury, but not to Scottish Enterprise.
When we look at what has happened to training, we see that the money absolutely disappears. Expenditure in Britain on training has been substantially cut, and not just in absolute terms. The cut per trainee is falling; for a youth training scheme trainee it is planned that expenditure should fall from £50 to £33 per week by 1992–93. Employment training expenditure will be cut from £1,040 in real terms in 1989–90 to £1,002 in 1990–91. The expenditure per filled place per week will fall from £97 to £90. Technical and vocational education initiative expenditure for participating students will fall from £229 in 1989 to £90 in 1992. As the number of educational compacts increases, the amount of money to spend on each compact falls from £143,000 to £100,000.
The Confederation of British Industry says that we need a skills revolution, but in Scotland the Training Agency's budget is being cut. In Scotland the budget for next year, comparing like with like, is nearly £30 million down, without allowing for inflation. If we allow for inflation, the budget is nearly £50 million down. The

budget for Scottish Enterprise will be much closer to £400 million than £500 million. By next year there is likely to be about £50 million off the training budget, and about £10 million—we cannot be exact—off the property income, and some more money off the equity income. Goodness knows what will happen to the grant in aid.
In addition, the local enterprise companies are likely to need extra staff for decentralisation. A calculation was made by the Training Agency that it would need about 540 extra staff for Britain. If Scotland needs an extra 50 staff, how will they be paid for? It is likely that a decentralised Scottish Development Agency will also need extra staff. It looks as though we shall be about £60 million to £100 million short.
A few weeks ago the Secretary of State was bouncing around with his new toy, Scottish Enterprise. He was buoyant about it, but the dream is coming to an end because he is now caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side he has Bill Hughes and the Prime Minister——

Mr. Norman Hogg: Not him again.

Mr. Worthington: Yes, I am sorry. I find it essential to mention Mr. Bill Hughes because it causes great embarrassment to the Government, and that is what we are here for.
On the one hand there are the problems of Mr. Bill Hughes and the Prime Minister, who seem to be addicted to strong local enterprise companies; on the other hand there is a commitment to strong, central core funding. Today's Glasgow Herald has the headline "Losing the SDA" and talks of a European development agency being set up just when we in Scotland are about to do away with the SDA. It is a careless article, but the flavour of it is that Scottish Enterprise is not seen as positive, but as a loss. We must challenge the Government to say from where the money is to come. I mentioned the Training Agency, the property portfolio and the grant in aid. I am sure that other hon. Members will want to talk during the debate about their fears over the loss of money to the new towns.
The Government have a major credibility problem—which they will have to face within the next few weeks—of how to fund the organisation. Tens of millions of pounds have to be found and there is no sign yet of where the money will come from.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I had not intended to speak in the debate, until I arrived at 9.30 this morning and was confronted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who asked me to speak for five minutes tonight. Perhaps it was a mistake to agree, but it is my duty to do so. After all, the issue is important.
I did not understand a word of the Minister's speech, but I think I share that predicament with most of humanity who have been attempting to follow his remarks in the Standing Committee. I notice, incidentally, that he has filled up the Order Paper with hundreds of technical amendments—at least, I suppose he will say that they are technical; if they are not, we shall be here until Christmas. The amendments will cost a great deal of money, which necessitates tonight's money resolution.
About £150 million a year is spent, from the public purse, on the Scottish Development Agency. We spend about £100 million a year on the development corporations. That is a great deal of money, and it has been spent, year in, year out, ever since we set up the new town development corporations.
The Minister has always agreed with me that the new town development corporations have played an important part in bringing inward investment to Scotland. They have worked in support of Locate in Scotland, and their recent achievements have been considerable. I pay tribute to their work. They have brought employment to Cumbernauld new town and to other new towns, such as that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).
If we are spending £100 million a year on the new towns, what will we spend on them after the corporations have been wound up by the Bill? Will money on the same scale still be spent on the new towns, with the express purpose of achieving inward investment and of keeping the new towns attractive to outside industry? I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that, even though, strictly speaking, the money resolution does not touch on that matter. At this time of night one does not have to be, strictly speaking, in order but I hope, in any case, that the Minister will reply to my important point.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) was candid enough to admit that he had not understood what I said, and so much was plain from his contribution, which, although extremely interesting in the context of a matter that we shall debate in depth when we discuss the new town clauses in the Bill, was not relevant to the resolution, which is a supplementary money resolution relating to Scottish Enterprise.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that the money was disappearing. He will see, if he reads the resolution, that the total financial resources available rise from £1·2 billion to £3 billion—so the money can hardly be said to be disappearing. The hon. Gentleman also talked nonsense about net grant in aid and the SDA's budget. He knows perfectly well that what matters to the agency is the money that it has to spend, and that is covered by its gross expenditure budget. Anyone who looks at the record over the last decade will see that, at constant 1988–89 prices, the budget has gone up from £140·7 million in 1978–79 to £160·2 million in 1990–91. That is an increase in real terms of some £20 million and reflects the resources that the Government are putting into the agency and the increasing success of the agency's economic activities. It is nonsense to talk of a reducing budget.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Wales. If he looks at his own favourite measure, that of Government provision for Wales, he will see that in 1979–80 the Welsh Development Agency received Government provision of £48·4 million compared with Government provision for the Scottish Development Agency of £64·9 million—a difference of about 30 per cent. In 1988–89, the difference had risen to almost 40 per cent. from a Government

provision of £66·6 million for Wales to £91 million for the Scottish Development Agency. The hon. Gentleman is on weak ground in trying to compare us with Wales.
The sale of the agency's property portfolio will not adversely affect the funding of the agency and in due course Scottish Enterprise. The Government have determined provision for next year and the following two years—the first two years of Scottish Enterprise—to maintain a constant level of gross expenditure. If receipts fluctuate we will take that into account in fixing the Government's direct contribution. The Training Agency budget is £9 million lower for 1989–90 than for last year, although it is still substantially up on the figure of £120 million in 1988–89.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister says that it is £9 million down, but that applies only if the Minister counts in this year's figures which were centrally counted last year. If the Minister compares like with like, the amount in the budget this year and what was spent last year under the same headings in the Scottish budget, he will see that the gap is nearly £30 million.

Mr. Lang: The figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman of £267·3 million for 1990–91 compare with £210 million in 1988–89. That is a substantial increase. If he looks at individual programmes he will see that expenditure in Scotland on the youth training scheme had an outturn in 1986–87 of £85·1 million while the estimate for the current year is £104·6 million. The figure for training unemployed adults was £23·5 million in 1986–87 and the estimate for 1989–90 is £131·4 million. Those figures are a credit to the Government and show that we are providing the necessary resources to meet the needs of our programmes. Those programmes are increasingly effective in delivering results. We are anxious to make provision for the future of Scottish Enterprise in a flexible way that is relevant to its needs. The supplementary money resolution does that, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It is worth rising briefly to express some disquiet and dissatisfaction at the way in which the Minister gabbled through his rather unconvincing brief in an attempt to allay the substantial doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
I appreciate that this is a supplementary resolution and that we are dealing with the finances of Scottish Enterprise. I certainly do not wish to stray beyond that. I am aware of the figures on the face of the resolution. They are megabucks. Much money is talked about, but my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was trying to establish exactly how much will be available on the ground in real spending terms for the first financial year of the new organisation. In that context the Minister was less than helpful.
I recognise that we can argue interminably about the record of the Scottish Development Agency and Government expenditure, but the commitment of the Government in the past few years has been anything but whole-hearted. I detect the Government's sleight of hand. When it is convenient Ministers talk about net Government contributions, but when it is not convenient


they talk about gross spending, knowing that much of that comes from the sale of assets. On many occasions the record of the agency has been inhibited by difficulties.
At one time people in the SDA said that there was no financial problem, but that the trouble was in getting forward schemes that were suitable for expenditure and which the agency wanted to support. There is no doubt that in recent years it has been a different picture. We have repeatedly been told that there are good projects that the SDA would like to support, but that it is not in a financial position to help. That has increasingly been illustrated by some discontent with the performance of the SDA, when its budget was squeezed during the successful Glasgow garden festival.
I do not want to bandy words about the performance in Wales, but I think that the financing of the Welsh Development Agency has been more generous in the past year or two. I do not think that the 30 to 40 per cent. gap that the Minister was talking about was conclusive. It was interesting to note, as we have remarked before, that the Welsh Development Agency is going to survive, and that a very different structure from that picked for Scottish Enterprise has found favour with the Secretary of State for Wales.
The real issue—the one that we have never got to the bottom of—is exactly what will be available to Scottish Enterprise for training and for the traditional role of the SDA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie talked about the training budget. Of course, the expenditure figures that were being used by the Minister of State included a number of items for 1990–91 that did not appear in the expenditure for 1989–90. The enterprise allowance scheme, with £40·7 million, is an obvious example, and there are a number of others. If I wished maliciously to delay the House, I would run through them, but I will not on this occasion.
The figure is due to drop by some £9 million. It is not clear whether there is to be additional money for all the imaginative new schemes that we are assured will emerge from the local enterprise companies, once Scottish Enterprise is up and running.
I remember that I said one or two somewhat doubting things during the exchanges, when the Secretary of State made a statement on the Floor of the House about public expenditure in Scotland during the coming two or three years. I pointed out at that stage—I think, with some justification—that there was concern about the way that the industry budget of the Scottish Office was going to decline in cash terms. I questioned whether that was a wise decision at a time when the Scottish economy undoubtedly faces problems with investment, and when the cold wind of recession is undoubtedly beginning to blow. I also asked what that meant for Scottish Enterprise, because, if the industry budget is cut, it does not seem to augur well for the atmosphere of the new launch of Scottish Enterprise or for the kind of funding available to it.
I was told, somewhat tartly, by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that I should know my business better than that, and that that was not the time to make an announcement about that particular matter. I took that rebuke as bravely as I could, but I think that I am entitled to ask the Minister when will be the right time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to the fact that the memorandum on

the front of the legislation, to which the money resolution is attached, predicts that the spending power of Scottish Enterprise will be broadly equivalent—I think that was the phrase used—to the existing budget. I presume that the existing budget is index-linked, although even that is not made entirely clear. Presumably there will be some allowance for inflation. If that is so, I am sure that you will be the first to understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I know that I cannot ask you to agree, as that would be improper—that that would be a sad anti-climax after the kind of expectations for Scottish Enterprise that Ministers raise in their more optimistic moods.
I remember one Sunday when I gritted my teeth to sit in front of my television set to watch the Secretary of State for Scotland on "On the Record". It was not a particularly stimulating hour, but one of its more interesting features was the distinct hint dropped by the Secretary of State that he was going to win his battle with the Treasury and that there would be substantially more cash for Scottish Enterprise than was outlined in the broadly equivalent standstill budget referred to in the memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill.
I do not suppose that the Minister of State will want to announce actual figures. That might be asking him to do too much and he might not be in a position to do so—I can readily accept that. He may not be able to be as flexible as that, although "flexible" seems to be the fashionable adjective of the night. I think, however, that we are entitled to say a word about the budget, and to ask when the amount—which we hope will be an increase, going beyond the principle of "broad equivalence"—will become public knowledge. That is not an unreasonable request, particularly when we are considering a supplementary resolution dealing with the finance of Scottish Enterprise.
There is no doubt that the rather superficial support that was marshalled for the idea of the one-door approach when Scottish Enterprise was first launched is now beginning to evaporate. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to an article in the Glasgow Herald, but there are many other illustrations of the diversity of view about how the organisation should be organised, the basis on which it is founded, the likelihood of obtaining the proper talent and whether the structure is sufficiently—what is the right word?—flexible to do the job as it is advertised.
That argument will continue. You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may well read press reports of further crisis meetings of representatives of the Prime Minister's office. which Mr. Bill Hughes—as author and progenitor of the scheme—will attend to complain about the way in which it is progressing, and the bureacracy that he believes is choking it. Others will claim that it is not so much being choked as running out of control, with friction and confrontation built in almost by definition.
Above all, however, the concern about resources will continue. I do not expect the Minister to put us out of our misery today—I fear that he will have to leave us in a state of anticipation—but it would help me, at least, if he could say a word about when the long-awaited announcement about additional finance will be made. I have never been in office, and I have not his knowledge of the financial timetables involved in legislation such as this.
We are now running up to the start line. Chairmen are being appointed and boards are being formed; yet the Minister has told us—no doubt honestly—that there are not even any draft agreements between the existing SDA


and Training Agency and the local enterprise companies. There are not even any draft memos and articles of association to be made available to those of us who are following events closely in Committee. That is rather mysterious: it suggests a certain hand-to-mouth, make and-mend approach to important parts of what we are told is the flagship legislation of the decade for the Government. I can remember when that term was applied to the poll tax, but it seems that there have been second thoughts.
Many details have not been filled in, and the financial details should take pride of place. I hope that, with the leave of the House, the Minister will be able to speak again, and that he will tell us when we shall know what the budget of Scottish Enterprise will be. Presumably the budget will be "divvied up"—if I may use a Scottish colloquialism—among the local enterprise companies very shortly. They will be out of the development stage and up and running within months, and the necessary decisions cannot be delayed for long. It will take some time to make arrangements for the division, the assessment of bids and the final allocation for each company; the timetable must therefore be fairly tight. No doubt it is already well defined in the Minister's mind, and I do not think it is too pressing or improvident of me to ask him to say a word about it.

Mr. Lang: I had already replied to the debate when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) chose to rise to his feet, which was somewhat surprising. Nevertheless, I shall repeat some of the points that I made.
The Scottish Development Agency has never suggested to us that its budget was insufficient for its needs. It has increased in real terms compared with when Labour was in power, and it is fulfilling a far more effective role than it was 10 years ago.
As to the Glasgow garden festival, I have not heard it suggested that there were insufficient resources available from the SDA for that venture. The general opinion is that it was a triumphant success.
The hon. Gentleman tried to draw unfavourable comparisons with Wales. I do not know whether he believes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales should have the say-so over apportioning the Scottish Office's resources, but that seems to be an undesirable undevelopment.
The Training Agency's programmes and resources have varied, as has its resources. But that variation reflects changing circumstances. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that unemployment has been falling, that there have been demographic changes, and that more and more young people leaving school are entering higher and further education. It would be wholly inconsistent with the Government's responsible approach to the handling of resources not to take account of such changes. For those reasons, the budgets of the SDA and the Training Agency are more than adequate.
As to the Scottish Enterprise budget for 1991–92, the hon. Gentleman has held his present post long enough to

know the calandar of events in which budgets are spelt out. This year will be no exception. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State—

(a) for paying sums to Scottish Enterprise, in so far as not already authorised by the Resolution (Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill [Money]) of 9th January, in respect of the exercise of its functions and in respect of its administrative expenses;
(b) for making loans to Scottish Enterprise for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions; and
(c) for fulfilling guarantees given by him in respect of sums borrowed by Scottish Enterprise from persons other than the Secretary of State or given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Scottish Development Agency from such persons,

so long as the relevant aggregate amount outstanding shall not exceed £3,000 million.
In this Resolution—
general external borrowing" has the same meaning as in the Act;
relevant aggregate amount outstanding" means the aggregate amount outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of—

(a) the general external borrowing of—

(i) Scottish Enterprise and its subsidiaries; and
(ii) the Scottish Development Agency,

(b) sums issued by the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under the Act or by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under Schedule 2 to the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, being sums which have not been repaid;
(c) sums paid (other than by way of lending) to Scottish Enterprise by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament but with there being deducted—

(i) any such sums repaid to the Secretary of State by the body; and
(ii) any such sums paid in respect of the administrative expenses of Scottish Enterprise; and

(d) loans guaranteed by Scottish Enterprise and by any of its subsidiaries; and

"subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.

ENTERPRISE AND NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS] (No. 2)

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise any payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums falling to be paid into that Fund by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the levying of charges towards expenditure under the Act in connection with provisions relating to—

(a) the investigation and determination of complaints and disputes relating to occupational and personal pension schemes;
(b) the compilation and maintenance of a register of occupational and personal pension schemes; and
(c) the making of grants by the Occupational Pensions Board.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Local Government Finance

Mr. David Amess: I beg leave to present a petition that has been signed by a considerable number of my constituents. They draw attention to the fact that last year Socialist-controlled Basildon district council imposed the largest rate increase in the country, of 57·2 per cent. My constituents are filled with considerable disquiet because of the vast sums of money that the local authority has been spending ever since.
The petitioners draw particular attention to the council's spending on area management and leisure facilities, and to the fact that the Tower gate theatre is to be further subsidised to the tune of £1·6 million, or otherwise it will go into liquidation.
Huge sums of money have been spent on the new civic centre, and last Wednesday Valentine's day cards were sent to everyone in Basildon at a cost of £46,000. The petition reads:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to use his powers of influence to ensure that local authorities such as Basildon do not set excessively high rates of community charge, the average of which should be no more than £278, and if they do, that he should cap the community charge. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".

To lie upon the Table.

Sub-post Offices

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about the future of sub-post offices. I do so because of representations that have been made to me about the commercial pressures under which sub-post offices are operating, and because I am conscious that they are a valuable adjunct to any village store, enabling many villagers to sustain a local shop against the massive competition from supermarkets and hypermarkets.
In effect, the sub-post office allows a local community to retain a retail outlet that might otherwise disappear, to the disadvantage of village people. It does more than that. The village store is not just a place where local people shop. It is a social centre where local people meet each other, where village gossip is exchanged and where, according to the length of time the storekeeper has been in possession, information about local services is disseminated. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that a village without a church, a school and a local shop is no village at all. As I said, the viability of the shop will depend to a great extent on whether it contains a sub-post office.
Thus, the future of sub-post offices is of great importance to every locality which has one, particularly villages; their future must also be important to the Post Office. Yet today a shadow lies across their future. Four years ago, there were 20,000 sub-post offices. Today, there are 18,500. In the past 12 months, well in excess of 100 sub-post offices have closed, mainly because they or the village shops had lost their commercial viability. In 1985, for example, it is estimated that the sub-post office network lost 4 per cent. of its business.
The new uniform business rate will impose an additional financial burden from which commercial pressures will prevent sub-post offices from seeking relief. Thus, it seems more than ever necessary for the Government, in their own right and as the effective owner of the Post Office, to consider whether they are making the maximum use of sub-post offices and whether section 7 of the Post Office Act 1969, amended by section 58 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981, is too restrictive.
As the Select Committee on Trade and Industry stated in its report last year:
In 1986 the Government recognised the case for wider powers and indicated that it would seek an early opportunity to introduce legislation to extend the Post Office's powers.
It added:
No legislation has emerged: nor have Ministers granted wider powers.
The Select Committee recommended that the Government should take steps to grant wider powers; so do I. The reason is simple; 10,000 of the smallest sub-post offices operate at a loss of between £20 million and £30 million each year. They transact 14 per cent. of total sub-post office business and represent 21 per cent. of total sub-post office costs. Without more business, they will cease to exist.
The profitability of other sub-post offices is threatened by changes that the Post Office has introduced recently, and particularly by its willingness to let other retail outlets sell stamps and, speaking locally, to allow a sub-post office to open in a hypermarket at Theale on the edge of my


constituency. That approach undermines any security that a sub-postmaster may think he has as an agent of Post Office Counters.
No doubt the Minister will tell me that Post Office Counters allows sub-post offices to provide banking and money transmission services, and certain services for central and local government, public corporations and some former nationalised industries, and that, since 1984, it has allowed sub-post offices to sell milk tokens and British Telecom phonecards and to provide facilities for cashing cheques drawn on banks other than Girobank and the payment of family credit. All these are to be welcomed, as is the intention to allow the community charge to be paid at sub-post offices. In no way do I complain about the number of Government-funded services that sub-post offices can provide.
What I am asking is whether sub-post offices could be allowed to do more, and how I should respond to those sub-postmasters in west Berkshire who have told me that their contract with the Post Office is too heavily loaded in favour of the Post Office, which effectively lays down what a sub-postmaster can or cannot do without proper negotiation. It may be argued that that is reasonable, since the sub-postmaster is the agent of the Post Office and has had to pay the first quarter of his remuneration to take over the office in the first place. Perhaps, but when he gives up his sub-post office, he will receive no pension or gratuity; he must provide that for himself that out of whatever savings he has been able to accumulate. Therefore, the profit of his sub-post office will be crucial.
I find myself in agreement with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which asked Post Office Counters to enable sub-post offices to offer a wider range of services than the Post Office or the Government have hitherto considered. As the federation said, the more people use the sub-post office, the more Post Office business will be done, which is good for the postmaster, good for the Post Office and good for the continuing viability of the village shop.
In evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters put it succinctly:
To make sub-post offices more viable, we need more work.
In conclusion, therefore, I ask my hon. Friend what discussions have taken place to encourage the Department of Transport to increase the number of post offices that can issue vehicle excise licences over the current 3,610—including Crown offices—that so far are allowed to do so. Bearing in mind the fact that there are 18,500 sub-post offices, one may ask why the Department of Transport does not use those additional outlets to provide such a service to the ordinary citizen.
Has it been suggested to the Post Office that if it intends to use other retail outlets to sell its services, it cannot, in equity, deny that freedom to sub-postmasters? Also, are discussions taking place with representatives of district councils in England and Wales to enable all sub-post offices to handle payment of the community charge? I understand that that matter has been under negotiation. I should be grateful if I could be told whether it has been finalised.
These three measures could all help to improve the viability of sub-post offices. There are others, such as allowing them to provide financial advice, or to act as

agents for TNT parcels, to name but two. I do not ask that sub-post offices should be granted a privileged status. However, I want my hon. Friend to consider what other services sub-post offices could be allowed to handle to improve their viability. In effect, I am asking him to underline the Government's commitment to the future of the sub-post office network and, indirectly, to the future of the village shop and village life.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on having raised a subject which I know is close to the hearts of many hon. Members. It is a tribute to the strength of his feelings and his commitment to sub-post offices, not just in his constituency but throughout the land, that he has taken the opportunity to raise the subject in an Adjournment debate.
I recognise the special place that the Post Office occupies in our society. It has been in existence for a long time. Its connections with the Crown make the Post Office a national institution. Everyone makes some use of the local post office and is very much aware of its place in our society. However, I intend to spend a few minutes on trying to put in context the work of the Post Office.
It is easy enough to focus, as my hon. Friend has so eloquently done, on the problems that arise from time to time and to overlook the success story that the Post Office represents today. Since it ceased to be a Government Department and became a public corporation—as long as 20 years ago—the Post Office has transformed itself into a profitable organisation which is run very much on commercial lines. It has had a sustained run of profitability for at least 10 years.
In the past, the Post Office tended to operate as a monolithic, single business, though covering a number of distinct activities—letters, parcels, counters and Girobank. During the past few years there has been an increasing separation of the different businesses, which has provided the Post Office with a much more commercial incentive to make the best possible use of its assets and to develop its own businesses that deal at arm's length with other parts of the Post Office.
Post Office Counters was incorporated in 1987 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office. Since then, Post Office Counters has managed to make a small, though, I think, significant, operating profit on its turnover of some £800 million per annum.
It is also true to say that quality of service has been improved at the same time. The Post Office management certainly recognises that there is still scope for further improvement. Many of us might ask about the long queues in post offices. Research has shown that, despite such factors, customers generally have a high regard for the service that is provided by their local post office, particularly the sub-post offices. Customers believe that they offer a much more direct and personal service. As my hon. Friend rightly observed, they are regarded as an essential part of the local community. In rural areas, post offices may even be regarded as social centres.
Recent research by the Post Office Users' National Council, an independent body which is the Post Office's statutory watchdog, found that in general queuing times are shorter in post offices—particularly in sub-post offices


—than in banks, building societies or supermarkets. A new chapter on quality of service was introduced into the sub-postmasters' contract in 1989 setting out the standards of quality of service required nationally. We welcome that statement of a continuing commitment to improved quality.
We should also remember that the Post Office operates the largest retail network in the country. It has a network of about 20,000 post offices throughout the United Kingdom—considerably larger than any bank or building society and more per head of population than in France, Germany, Japan or the United States. In the United Kingdom, post offices are easily accessible to all but those in the very remotest areas. In urban areas, the aim is to have offices distributed so that no one is more than a mile from a post office, and in rural areas no more than two miles. Only a small proportion of offices—1,385 out of over 20,000 at the end of 1989—are directly owned and operated by Post Office Counters.
The vast majority of offices are sub-post offices, with which this debate is immediately concerned. They are franchised by Post Office Counters to self-employed agents, the vast majority of whom operate a private business alongside their post office counter—I shall return to that in a few moments. The post office provides a nucleus of business and brings in regular customers to buy stamps, post parcels and collect benefits and pensions; and the sub-postmaster needs to capitalise on that custom and understand and meet the needs of his local community in his private business. The range of private business is wide, and encompasses general stores, confectioners and newsagents, tea rooms, haberdashery and even laundry and dry cleaning.
Post offices—particularly those in rural areas, which account for just under half the network—therefore serve an important social function as my hon. Friend so rightly and eloquently pointed out. That was clearly recognised in the Act establishing the Post Office as a public corporation, which imposes on the Post Office a statutory duty to have regard to the social as well as industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom in exercising its powers. The Government have repeatedly reaffirmed their commitment to a network of post offices adequate to enable the Post Office to fulfil its statutory duty—and I am happy to do so again at the Dispatch Box this evening. I gladly take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work both of Post Office Counters and the sub-postmasters; post offices have an important part to play in maintaining local communities.
Decisions about the day-to-day running of the Post Office's business, such as the type and level of service provision in particular areas, are rightly operational matters for the Post Office Board. The Government's role is confined to broad issues of general policy and to matters of overall financial control. The Post Office is fully committed to maintaining an extensive national network, and in particular to keeping the rural network as close to its current size as possible. In recent years, closures in rural areas have occurred only as a result of force majeure—in most cases because it has proved impossible to find a suitable candidate willing to take on the business.
For smaller offices, the opening hours laid down by the Post Office were not always justified by the levels of business and could prove a disincentive to potential candidates. To overcome these problems in its smallest offices, the Post Office has introduced what are known as

community offices. These may be open for only a few hours a week—there is no fixed minimum—at times agreed with the district manager. They may be run from someone's home so that they can offer a very flexible alternative.
Larger rural offices may also operate on a part-time basis with flexible opening hours where it is difficult to keep them open full time. These innovations, my hon. Friend will be glad to hear, have helped to minimise closures and have led to the reopening of 70 offices which had previously been closed. There are now some 1,350 of these community offices.
There is a fairly general perception that the Post Office network is shrinking and that rural offices in particular are fast disappearing. That impression was given by my hon. Friend. In fact, changes in the size of the network have been relatively limited. In 1909, there were 22,100 sub-post offices; 80 years later there are still 19,300. Furthermore, over the last year the sub-office network has been strengthened as some 110 directly run Crown offices have been converted into sub or agency offices.
I do not want to fall out with my hon. Friend over figures, but mine suggest that the net loss of sub-post offices at present is about 100 per annum out of that 19,300 total. I do not say that that is a good figure, but it puts in context the sort of performance that we are seeing from the Post Office in attempting to maintain its network, and that is a more encouraging figure than many believe.
The picture I have drawn hardly seems to be that of a dying business. Indeed, in many ways the business is being expanded. My hon. Friend referred to many of the factors involved. The Crown post offices tend generally to be more expensive to run than the sub-offices, and that, again, is acknowledged by the Post Office in the changes it is making, in a sense switching the concentration to sub-post offices which have a greater variety of business and, therefore, I believe, for the future, this can be regarded as being more encouraging.
The Post Office has power to provide services for central an local government, for public corporations and for some of the formerly nationalised industries. It also has a general power to provide money transmission services
My hon. Friend suggested that the Post Office should be allowed to undertake new business. As he rightly pointed out, this issue was addressed in the recent Trade and Industry Select Committee report on the Post Office. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), said in 1986 that we in the Department of Trade and Industry accepted the argument for extending the Post Office's powers, an argument put forcefully tonight by my hon. Friend. The difficulty is to decide in what areas that would be appropriate.
We see difficulty in allowing the Post Office to extend its business into areas where the private sector already provides or could provide a service. That sort of direct competition between the private and public sectors would, we believe, inevitably and understandably attract accusations of unfair competition. I do not suggest that Post Office Counters is either uncommercial or insulated from all effects of competition. It is not. But as a public corporation it is not in quite the same position as a private business.
One of the areas where it has often been suggested that the Post Office's powers should be widenend to cover, as my hon. Friend suggested, is that of financial services. The


Post Office already has some expertise in this area through its work for Girobank and the Department of National Savings. It seems to me that the sale of financial services, such as insurance and stock market investments, in post offices could raise serious difficulties. In this case, there is a clear danger that the Post Office label could be seen as implied Government backing for the products. Consumers would be likely to take the view that buying a financial product from a post office was somehow safer than buying it from an independent business. In that sense we would not be providing a level playing field or a fair competitive environment.
My hon. Friend will understand that this is a difficult area for us to justify allowing an extension of powers into those spheres, despite the eloquent case that he made. While I wish to continue to look at the issue, I hope that everyone will appreciate the difficulties that would be caused if we allowed post offices, with the sort of financial arrangements that they have, to encroach into areas provided by the private sector which could put small local private businesses in some jeopardy as a result of the competition that would be provided by the Post Office in that new way.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May I reinforce the point I made? If, as it is, the Post Office is now using other retail outlets to sell, say, stamps, it is effectively taking business from the sub-post office, and thereby it is undermining the security of the sub-post office and the confidence that the sub-postmaster has in being a servant of the Post Office. It seems that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If the Post Office wants to use other retail outlets, can it reasonably deny the sub-postmaster the same right to see what he can attract into his sub-post office to maintain viability?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a fair and interesting point, which I shall consider. I do not want to be drawn into criticising the Post Office for its recent bold initiatives—for example, in selling postage stamps through other outlets, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. I want to find ways of dealing with those issues, but I remain conscious

of the accusation that could be made that, by allowing the Post Office to extend its activities, we would endanger established small, private businesses.
It is fair to reinforce something that my hon. Friend pointed out—over the past few years, the Post Office has considerably extended its business through the sale of milk, gas and electricity tokens and British Telecom phonecards, by cashing other banks' cheques, through family credit payments and community charge stamps, by accepting community charge payments and by processing E111 forms for health cover in other European countries. That is a considerable step forward in extending the range of activities without necessarily competing in the financial services sector about which I have expressed concern. We must recognise the difficulties. I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient as we try to find the best way through them while emphasising the role of the sub-post offices.
When it comes to the relationship between the sub-post offices, the Post Office, other Government Departments—my hon. Friend mentioned the Department of Transport—and, in a different context, local authorities, we would look to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to make cases on behalf of its members and, where appropriate, for the Post Office to support it. I shall look at the relationship between the sub-post offices, the Post Office and other Government Departments. As a constituency Member, I have argued for extending the activities of my sub-post office in, for example, providing licences. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend's view.
I want to strike a balance in paying great tribute to the work that the sub-post offices already do and to the extension of their activities in the community. I reassure my hon. Friend that we give this matter the highest possible priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are aware of the need to maintain the rural sub-post office network in particular. I do not want to over-stress the difficulties, but we recognise those involved in going down the route suggested by my hon. Friend. I intend to keep the issue alive and to try to find the best way forward. We all want the best possible future for our sub-post offices, particularly our rural network.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.